Reading what Erik wrote on the 21st, i totally agree with what he said. When 9/11 happen people we so willing to give up all there rights and liberties so that they could feel safe and feel as if there was nothing to worry about. But then again it was only a phase that the people went through. Because a few years after the fact of the matter was said and done and it was time for war now there are probably more people opposed to the war than for it.
I think that history has a trend to reinvent itself. If you look back at the 60's with everything that was going on, it is very similar to today. There is just a general untrust in the government in things and do and say. A lot of the music know it is not uncommon to maybe here a reference to the war going on or to someone wanting a justified answer to why the war is still continuing. Some of the music has become anti-war just as it was in the 60's. Media coverage has escalated everything that is going on to another level because everyday that the television or radio is turned on the is an issue or problem or question that has to be answered.

This may not be that deep of a thought but think about it.

It has to do with history being a process. Both a process of obtaining the proper info to make your own interpretations, and the process of history itself, meaning that everything that ever happens is included in some sort of system that will one day spit out a "finished product" that may take the shape of an ounce of knowledge, a book, an article, a teaching position, a cool thought while running through the woods, a discussion among friends, etc.

I never thought (you probably never thought either) that one could compare Business, more specifically Operations Management, to the process of History. But think about this...every process has variation. That is what quality control people do in factories. They measure how many chips are in a random sample of bags to make sure that it is somewhere within a standard deviation of the average amount of chips. Same thing with sodas. Every 20 oz. bottle of coke never has exactly 20 oz. in it. It's always a little high (20.02) or a little low (19.98). This variation is only a problem for management when it becomes so great that the quality of the product suffers.
Dr. Benson was our manager, new ideas, study skills, and an efficient brain were the products, and the process that the manager chose to use was history. There was some variation, some deviation away from the standards, but overall, the process did not let us down.

So there, now you can compare Operations Management to History.

As a response to David's post, while I do agree with much of what you said about the testing of the government during the 60s there were moments during the 50s when the government was tested by the media and others. During the red scare and the McCarthy witch hunts, the media played an active role in testing the government's "big brother" mentality when Edward Murrow criticized McCarthy's unjustified questioning of patriotism of many american citizens(highlighted in the movie "Good Night and Good Luck"). I do agree with you on the topic of increased questioning of political decision making during Vietnam but keep in mind that the popular opinion of the war did not decline until many years after we had first sent troops over. In this way it was not the quick martyrdom that you describe in your post but more a steady decline of the popularity of the war that led to the despise of the government that we associate the 1960s with. After the public turned on the government and every aspect of American culture openly objected to the war then the political landscape of direct and quick critizicism of policial decision making which you describe in your post came about. In this transition between steadfast obedience to executive decisions to open rejection of governmental ideals America changed and new ideas about what was the best America emerged, allowing for all of the political, cultural, and ideological change that came out of the 1960s. I like to ramble.

In touching back to the 60's and the class discussion that we had, i felt that one topic was left out. That would be the infallibility of the governement. Prior to the Vietnam era the government was questioned, but never truely tested by media, students, activists, and culture as a whole. As a result whenever unpopular choices are made by politicians they are quickly martyred for their beliefs (rather unAmerican..) and seldom have a chance to explain themselves. As a result politicians are starting to resemble the old presidential lineup of the Guilded Age when the executive branch did almost nothing.

Discussion Board as Virtual Study Session

Feel free to post questions, timelines, or anything else here that might be useful as you prep for the final.

The study session will be in our regular classroom from 5:30 to 6:30ish.

I am sure this has been discussed before me, but Gaddis' comment on how historians have not heard the actual cannon fire of a battle, nor the voice of Lincoln, struck me as odd because Gaddis mentions very recent events, but fails to speak about the advent of the internet and mass media. Now we can hear Malcom X speak and we can listen to the actual music that filled bars and people's homes during the 1930s. Technology is erasing that safety bubble of detachment from the historian's subject. Gaddis almost seemed to relish the idea that people historians are better than people there at the moment. But as Genovase discovered, people are what make up history and it is people that history is founded upon. People during the moment in time may not be as astute as historians viewing the moment at a later point, but it is through those people that historians get the whole picture.

When I read the book I seemed to get a backlash against those that had criticized Gaddis by saying "You weren't really there, you don't know what it was truly like." And Gaddis I think goes too far in assessing historians'importance and the relative importance of those involved in the moment. With the internet and immense real-live footage available to us, historians might become less detached and become what Gaddis seems to fear most: a biased observer.

Like Kate, I think Gaddis' book has been my favorite of the term. I think he just has a great way of expressing his views and illustrating examples. That said, I am beginning to be annoyed with how Historians are a product of their time and that they are influenced by their own experiences and by historians before them. I feel like we’ve been talking about those facts all term and to me, that’s an obvious point in reading (history or any other subject) and in life in general. Every opinion is going to vary and every historian will look at events differently. I don’t know if I’m just diminishing significance but to me it’s obvious.

Anyway, I loved Gaddis’ discussion of selectivity, simultaneity, and scale and how “historians have no choice but to engage in them.” I liked the example of the time machine and how if a historian were to pick their area of study and visit it, that experience might actually be counterproductive because of the narrow scope in present experiences.

I also liked what Brandon said about the discussion of history vs. the social sciences. In chapters 4 and 5 I found it interesting that Gaddis would say that social scientists oversimplify history “in order to anticipate the future” because I’ve always heard from history teachers that one of the greatest things about history is that we can help solve current problems by learning from our past mistakes. It seems to me that Gaddis wants to focus on how historians so honorably study and analyze history with no other agenda. But I think that everyone hopes that those historians realize that they are responsible to the masses for using their knowledge for the public good. This was the only point that did bother me a little but I still loved the book.

I would also like to include my vote for the final being same structure as the midterm. I (and I think others agree with me) would write a much better out-of class essay than an in-class one. Thanks.

This man is crazy! What is up with his underwear fetish? I think he mentions Neapolitan’s underwear three times!

Anyway, John Gaddis may have a weird fascination with underwear, but his book rocks my world! I have been trying, desperately to find my place in academics. I started out majoring in theatre at the College of Charleston. Somehow, I ended up here at Furman.
My days are numbered here. I only have a year left.
Now, that I am a history major, (have been for some time now), I have constantly seconded guessed myself. What is the importance of history, besides just knowing facts? Up chucking random information on a dime is something I’m afraid I will never master. What I am good at is comparing and analyzing facts. After reading this book, I realized that history is a good tale neatly packaged in the brilliance of a particular kind of process. The process of finding a good fit where the past glides into the present is based on Gaddis’s three stage process; “connecting reality, representation, and persuasion”. These stages define the entire job description of a historian, if not that, then a scientist. If indeed I am to make a “fit” in this no man’s land, that has been forged by others before me, then as Gaddis himself has said, [I’m] “at the point of no return” the moment at which an equilibrium that once existed [has] ceased.” In this, I have found a meaning to being a product of my time, directed on this particular general path, I am able to find that illusive area where imagination collides with reality.

Pg. 99

Goodness where to start. Joel, I do appreciate the fact that you expressed your opinions on here, but I think you're forgetting that you, as a product of your time and experience, are a product of your context. I don't necessarily blame you for objecting to Gaddis, but you're a political science major so it becomes something personal. Gaddis has an excellent point in that we need to transcend our own context to gain a foothold on real objective synthesis of what has happened in the past. I wouldn't say he discredits former schools of historical thought in any sense. If you look back at history and understand that its development is a synthesis of subjective views into an objective past, then each prior school is representative of one of those standpoints. We found in class that we all have problems with certain schools for certain reasons, and I think most of us can agree that the sysnthesis of many of them best create a view of the past that we can agree on. There is no discounting of a view of history. Every view has partial truth, otherwise it would have no substance. But we want, Gaddis wants, the whole truth; if you discount one, you lose the whole.

Also, I think it's very important to consider the fact that we are reading this book with a background of individual context and experience. We interpret subjectively, and those interpretations (like schools of history) contain partial truth; but they are far from the wh0ole truth. If you have a background in a field that Gaddis happens to...put down, so to say, it becomes a personal issue that clouds your judgment of what your reading. Just s in history, we need to transcend that context, those biases in order to gain an objective account of what he is trying to say. This should hold true for ALL social sciences as well.

Historical processes are not at all consistent in their individuality. But they are consistent in that they are important parts of an overall process; the progression of history. But in their individuality, and our interpretations of them, once again, they are not the whole. The goal of the historian is to avoid being influenced by his own biases and predispositions (his own present, if you will). Whether or not we do this we can see by our own problems with past schools of historical thought. He's really not an idiot; he's a human being.

History itself has no weakenesses. How can it? It is what exists and what occurs. We are the ones with the weakness, and Gaddis makes it clear that Historians have been trying to deal with their own subjectivity for a long time. Just because other social scientists are just now beginning to understand that they are too objects in subjectivity (they have biases and predispositions) doesn't mean that history is better or worse or that historians or better or worse.

Hard science, on the other hand, works within a world of set rules and processes. These set rules and processes make their realm purely objective. They avoid all of the influence of the scientist as a protuct of his own context. Whether or not a hard scientist is prejudice doesn't mean that it will affect his experiement. They can make judgments prior to experience and be assured that they will indeed happen. That is the goal of the historian and it always has been; to avoid contaminating the experiment.

Finally, understand that Gaddis too is a human being. He has his own predispositions and biases, but the important part is that he (as a historian) recognizes that those predispositions and biases affect the way we view history as the objective past. Thus, just because you recognize his bias in his book, that doesn't mean the reader's bias has a right to oppose it. That's not our job. Instead, we need to look past the bias, realize the bias itself is not truth, and find the real truth in what he's trying to say and what of our own experience expresses personal knowledge of that truth.

And yes, I have a bias. I liked the book. It's a philosophy book at heart, and I, of course, have a bias. But I'm not going to say that he's right in talking down other social sciences or talking up history or any other kinds od subjective judgement that we might interpret or misinterpret for that matter. That's not my job. It's like missing the cake because you don't like the icing.

Erik and Blaine both make good points. I was in Blaine's group, and, like he said we talked about a number of things that seem to define the 'ethos' of the 60s. For me though, I tied everything together with a spirit of rebellion, which I believe was discussed in class. However, I think Blaine may be a little mistaken when he says historians are products of their time. This is certainly true, but I believe there's more to it than that. Historians are also influenced by previous historians and other schools of thought. The anti-progressives for instance wrote from a perspective of their time, but also in response to the progressives.

Oh and as for the exam, make it exactly like the midterm. Writing take home essays, does more than improve the essay quality. The process of research, even over just a day, aids the study process for the entire test.

Biased, self-promoting, arrogant, and grossly overgeneralized. Those were just a few of the phrases that kept recurring in my head as I read the Gaddis book. Obviously, I must be missing something here because, by the criteria we were told to focus on before reading a book (i.e. authority of the author, publisher, etc.), all of these people are a lot smarter than I am. Then again, at times I was convinced that Oxford published this because Gaddis devoted so much time to sucking up to the town of Oxford and how much he loves it (p. 131-134). Gaddis obviously approached this book with a specific agenda. His treatment of the social sciences overgeneralizes their processes and wrongly accuses them of taking great leaps backward in the scientific process (moving away from the historian's island, as Gaddis says). At the same time he claims the "hard sciences" have discovered that their past processes were wrong, but they are finally becoming enlightened enough to move toward the island of the historical process. Thus, we are to take Gaddis on his word that historians are the most right in all academic methodology. Essentially, Gaddis is arguing that social scientists are running away from gaining knowledge or being useful while "hard" scientists are finally beginning to catch up to the noble perch upon which historians have so long been standing.

In making this argument, Gaddis is also discounting the various schools that historical thought has gone through. He either has no sense of historiography (and since we can assume that Gaddis is not an idiot, this is probably not the case) or, and this is much more likely, he chooses to ignore it because it runs directly counter to his implication that the historical process has remained consistent through the years. Otherwise, his argument that historians have stayed defiantly on their island while scientists have been adrift at sea doesn't hold water (if you'll excuse the pun). At the same time, Gaddis does not remain consistent in the assertions he makes through the book. He says from the very beginning that hitorians "pride ourselves on NOT trying to predict the future" (p. 2). He abandons this idea in practice, although not in rhetoric, later in the book when he does seem to argue that history can most efficiently do this very thing. He also notes on page 2 that historians are not influenced by present trends. If Gaddis really believes this then he is delusional, and I've already given him too much credit in my assumption that he's not an idiot. One of the major points that we've repeatedly come back to in the class clearly contradicts Gaddis' assertion. The simple "cheat sheet" of historical schools is a representation of how the time in which historians write influences the way that they see and reflect the past. We've made it a point to note a book's year of publication for just this very reason.

Obviously, I did not care for this book or for Gaddis' arguments in it. He unfairly, uneccessarily, and inaccurately bashes the social sciences like a playground bully. He rightly praises the other sciences (I would argue that they all should be given praise, both social and "hard") but then condescendingly says they are just now catching on to methods historians have already realized and arrogantly says they will now be much better for it. And, he does not acknowledge any weaknesses or limitations of history. In each situation, he spins his version of reality into something positive that everybody else should imitate.


That's it for my rant. As for the final, I agree that it should be structured like the midterm with the essays being take-home and the in-class section resembling the midterm's. The essays can be much better constructed and more thoughtful and insightful that under the time constraints of the final, and a simple word limit would prevent people from rambling and trying to insert every piece of information we've covered this winter.

Good point Mason. In discussing the ethos of the sixties yesterday, Reeser and I came to the conclusion that the sixties weren't as unique as everyone thinks they are. Sure, they have some very interesting events happen and many things come to a head in the sixties, but if you look at the twenties, the same thing is happening. It is the sixties, however, that gets the brunt of this definition because it is closer to our own time. We know people who were alive in the sixties, we hear stories from the sixties, and watch movies about the sixties. None of this happens for the twenties, and why? Simply because it was farther away. It's not as if the twenties are any less important or had any less impact on society, it is simply that the sixties are the forground of the painting with the twenties being that river in the background, a little blurry and not the center of the painting. That is what I liked about this book so much, it explains why we study and remember the sixties in such great detail, but leave out the twenties almost entirely.

Gaddis' book definately raised some interesting points about the role of historians. I don't know if I necessarily agree with all his ideas, but he definately gets you thinking about history and the role of historians in making it. I specifically liked the argument he made comparing history to a landscape. It is clear in the forefront but as you get farther and farther away from the subject it gets blurry and confused. Everyone can see the subject, but accurately portraying the entire landscape is the challenge historians must overcome. During my wikipedia project I definately saw how true this was. One of my stubs had a wealth of information while one of them was very hard to find anything on. I had to expand my search to find info on one and narrow my search on the other. I liked Blaine's point about everything being related because in history it does seem like events are connected. Basically history is very hard to define because the decisions about what is history are made by humans. It is important to remember this and challenge history because it is a living thing.

As for the final exam I liked the format of the midterm. The take home portion gave us time to put down all our ideas but the in class portion gave us a chance to reflect everything we studied and went over in class.

I liked what Blaine had to say but I have an additional observation. If all historians are a product of their time or "ethos" then we also are a product of our time and "ethos." That being the case it has made me wonder what are the sentiments and themes of our generation. I think because of 9/11 our generation is faced with a question of security or liberties? I also think our generation can be categorized by a major swing in view of governmental control. After 9/11 Americans were willing to give up all liberties for safety and security. George Bush had the mandate of the people but now 6 years later people are now rejecting that mandate. People now rebel against government authority and criticize Bush for his aggressive anti-terror policies. In music we see some anti-war sentiment (Green Day and the Dixie Chicks). Bush and the government is eve starting to lose the support of suburban America. In a lot of ways there are strong similarities to our "ethos" and that of the 60s. The major difference is that America's current rebellion against authority hasn't led to any liberal social revolution.

That's an interesting point, Miller. It makes me think of our group discussion today. In finding the "Ethos" of the sixties, we examined each event and (at least for my group) we usually ended up talking about how certain events were sprung from others and how, in some ways, they were all related. But for my post I wanted to comment on a couple things about the overall class. I found it pretty interesting (though strenuous at times) to be studying "schools of historians" and how each school examined history a little differently. This to me reinforced the idea that all historians are a product of their time period. Another interesting thing that we just could not seem to avoid in this class was the idea of the Jeremiah. This idea was new to me and I found it pretty fascinating how many different people in history used it either as an excuse or a reason to support their cause. It provided some proof that no matter how different eras seem to be, there are always some common threads that are consistent in progressing times.

I have found reading this book to be considerably difficult as the author provides so many arguments for his points that it begins to run together for me. But, as I was reading today I did come across a pretty interesting quote that could even relate to us doing our research. Gaddis says, “Causes always have contexts, and to know the former we must know the latter.” In saying this Gaddis is essential declaring that there is no absolute truth due to the fact that he is declaring that everything every event is based on some other event. In order to have an absolute truth we must have an event that is going to happen regardless of what is happening during the same time or what has occurred previously. Therefore as historians we must understand that however we try to isolate an event it is impossible to truly find an instance that is not effected by various variables in history.

In reading Gaddis' Landscape of History I found one quote very interesting, "The trouble with the future is that it's so much less knowable than the past" (pp 56). Thomas Jefferson once said something that goes along with what Gaddis is saying here when he proclaimed "I like the dreams of the future better than the history of the past". We always know that certain continuities will follow us into the future, but people have the ability to change and better the world by leaving some of these continuities behind.

I agree, I would prefer just multiple questions and maybe some short answer/identification questions. The essay would be tough since we would only have 2 days to do it, as well as study for two exams.

Casey, I like what you say about Landscape of History. The biggest part of that book was definetly about how history os written/decided. I really did enjoy that about the book since I am fascinated about the idea. I like how Gaddis tells about perspective, and how one's perspective can decide how you write history. For example, the further you are away from the history you are writing about the less biased your view tends to be. You really do have to distance yourself from history, not only to create a more objective and less biased viewpoint (to remove all bias is impossible), but also create a bigger picture and more fully explain what you are writing about. Like Micheavelli says: "to know well the nature of peoples one needs to be a prince, and to know well the nature of princes one needs to be of the people."

I agree with Casey about the exam concerning the multiple choice. I do think thought that an out of class essay would be problematic just because of time contraints. We would have to write an essay and study for two exams.

For the final exam, I vote to keep it in the same format as the mid-term. Because there is so much information on particular schools of historical interpretation and the names of the historians that supported them, I don’t think that an essay would even be worth writing if we were to do it in class. I think that the essays would be much more in-depth and potent if we had the option of using reading material to support our ideas. For the multiple choice portion, it might also benefit us to focus more on the causes and effects, social implications, and general themes of the class instead of specific dates because of the fact that the majority of class time was spent discussing the former rather than the latter.

With reference to The Landscape of History reading, I guess the most important thing that I got out of it would be the author’s views on how to determine what history really is. To me, this is what the entire book was about. Gaddis emphasizes the importance of breaking down history into smaller pieces in order to better understand it. He points out the need for the analysis of cause and effect both in a small window of time and in time periods that may span several years, or even decades. He goes even further to emphasize the importance of using models in order to figure out the causes behind certain effects and even the theoretical consequences of what may have happened if the past did in fact occur differently than we now understand it.

When I was reading some of the Ronald Reagan articles, I was suprised at how blantantly biased some of them were. I understand that it is ok to criticize a president on his actions during the presidency, but to do it without context irritates me. The article, "Reagan and the Salvadoran Baby Skulls" upset me some. I understand that, esp. in Guatemala, there was alot of violence. Reagan supoported General Rios Montt who was a religious fanatic and committed genocide. "While keeping the CIA account secret, Reagan permitted Guatemala's army to buy $3.2 million in military trucks and jeeps in June 1981. Confident of Reagan’s sympathies, the Guatemalan government continued its political repression without apology." It is horrible what he did, but you have to keep in mind that Reagan could have supported the communists in the country instead, who were being funded by the USSR and Cuba. Both sides committed genocide. It is hossible what happened, but you have to consider which was the lesser of two evils.

As you can read in Chapter 13, section 4, the Nicaragua government was overthrown by the Sandinistas, a communist group. Reagan supported their enemies, the contras, led by the democratically elected President who was deposed, Violetta Chamorro. Both sides killed and tortured countless people. It was the way they fought, and the US can't force people to fight a certain way, yet because Reagan supported one side, he is blamed for the violence.

Also with the town of El Mozote, El Salvodor, there is no reason that the Atlacatl Battalion should have killed those people, esp. the children, but it was how they fought thier enemies. Again, it was them or the communists.

I just don't agree with only blaming one side for the violence and death. Everything should be put in context. The article is biased and therefore hypocritical and inaccurate. I do think that we should look back on past actions and be critical to learn from our mistakes, but it should be put in context. I do not think that article does that. It is like saying we dropped the atomic bombs on Japan, but without saying why. Just don't mention that they attacked us and we were at war with them. Now I am not saying that the decisions that Reagan made were necesarrily correct or that I agree with them, but it all should be put in context.

I think Richard Nixon was elected because poeple were fed up with LBJ and the Vietnam War. They wanted a change so they replaced a democrat with a republican.

Edited by author 02-19-2007 10:06 PM
I thought more today about Malcom X's call for separation, and on some level it makes quite a bit of sense. In a form of government where human rights were given to white males above all, it is very difficult to gain the same rights for a people the system was not made for. From his point of view, King was striving for political equality...if he was striving for more, he was going about it in a political way. But to Malcom X, it was a futile attempt to gain rights of being through rights of state. That issue has been debated by philosophers for hundreds of years; it still is to this day. So separation in that sense comes from the recognition of a flaw in the system; humanity isn't defined by the state, humanity defines the state. And political equality is a far cry from the equality of brotherhood. I look at his position as somethign more than just a movement. It's a system in its own right, and I find that quite fascinating.

Does anybody know why Richard Nixon was ever elected President in the first place? I find it hard to believe that a Checker speech is strong enough on its own. Plus, "He is a very unpleasantman...What I never understood is why he became a politician. He hated to meet new people." (ATF 395-6)

What was his appeal?

Ha, the consensus of historians. I agree, Will.

The master page of Wiki stubs for the class can be found at http://facweb.furman.edu/~bensonlloyd/hst21/stubs07.htm. Please look these over to make sure I have the correct link for your project. Feel free, too, to browse the other submissions put up by your classmates.

Brandon, I would have to agree that the Harris Treaty is important, but maybe not a 10. I would (from your brief) a 8.5 or so. I think it is important because, like you said, it sets important presedence concerning future US involvement in Japan. On the other hand, I wouldn't give it a 10 because it didn't have major affects in the US at the time. One thing to remember is our scale from class is about US history, not world history. If it were world history then I would maybe give it a higher rating. I do agree, however, that it is a very under-rated subject in terms of teaching goes. Which leads to another discussion, one that we have kind of focused on in this class: how do things like Custer's Last Stand get 3 days of lectures (seriously, in my AP US class we spent 3 days on it!) while topics like the Harris Treaty or the War Relocation Authority or the infamous Kore-itnam recieve very little if any teaching?

I apologize for all of the stuff in class today. In all honesty, I didn't know it was that funny, but I did mean it on a serious note. I understand the Women's Voting issue to be part of the overall Civil Rights movement. I do consider that to be an issue of great importance as a whole, but I though Women's Voting in particular was a midway type of issue. It had a greater effect at empowering women and their influence on national politics, but overall it doesn't have the impact of the Civil Rights movement in general. I apologize if I offended anyone in the process.

And also, I did mean to have the Harris Treaty on the top of the list as far as historical importance. It was the diving line between the fall of feudalism in Japan and those who took over in the aftermath were those who advocated high competition to keep up with the West. The treaty treats Japan as a stepping stone to Chinese trade, and I think it is a prime example of American foreign policy that is short sighted and always seems to nip us in bud in one way or another; American aid to the Middle East in the 1980s is another example. If the Harris Treaty didn't exist, Japan would have had more time to confront the United States on its own terms and possibly silence the internal conflict between those who wanted to keep Japan closed and those who wanted to compete. In the end, that economic competition led to greater conflict in the 20th century and directly influenced Japanese involvement in World War II, which everyone can consider a 10 on the scale. Just as important as World War are the seeds that are sown decades in the past. I just thought I would explain myself somewhat on here.

Edited by author 02-13-2007 10:54 PM
I agree with David and Will. Our version of the Cold War is often dramatized around the Cuban Missile Crisis and the US standing up against the evil Soviet Union and Cuba. Our version of history definately portrays the US as the good guy and the Soviet Union as the bad guy. I wonder how much can be attributed to JFK. He is generally a mythic character in US history and it is likely a large part due to the fact he was assasinated. Even to this day we have anti Russian or Soviet sentiment that I assume we have all been guilty of. It is interesting to see how history is portrayed through the eyes of different people. I can't remember who brought it up in class the other day, but the Japanese and Pearl Harbor is a perfect example. It was mentioned that in Japanese schools Pearl Harbor is not even in the curriculum. It just shows the biased nature of history and how different sides have completely different stories.

Same Will. Everthing prior to HST 21 that I have learned about the Cold War was basically a celebration of America's superiority to the USSR. I've never believed all of it, though I am inclined to view the Soviets as the "bad guys" in that period of history. But the space race was taught pretty objectivly in my opinion at least.

I don't know about anyone else, but when I learned about the Cold War in high school we learned it from the orthodox viewpoint. I never really agreed with this statement that the entirety of the Cold War was Russia's fault. Learning about the newer revitionist viewpoint really made me think. I agree with a lot of it, especially how the US is very economically driven. I was just kinda curious to see how everyone else learned about the Cold War.

Joel has posted a very interesting topic and I wish that I had watched this episode. I have had to look up Dickerson's opinion and it is in truth different than what I had expected. I had thought "black" would be a generalization of stereotypes of the race that would be portrayed in a largely negative light. On the topic of whether Obama is black or not...He is not "black" in the sense that he is descended from relatives not brought to this country in bondage and had to pull themselves out of illiteracy and destitution following emancipation. But I do believe he is African-American and is a member of said ethnic group.
I think that DuBois and Garvey would have been in disagreement with Dickerson's labeling of Obama as African African-American.

I was watching The Colbert Report last night, and he had on a guest - Debra Dickerson - who was making an argument that I felt related back to some of our recent class discussions. Specifically, she was arguing that Barack Obama is not "black." Her basic reasoning behind this was that there is a significant difference between being an "African-American" and being "black" in the United States. In order to meet her definition of being "black," one must be of West African origin, descended from people who suffered under slavery, and have experienced the trials of American race relations. Because Obama's father immigrated from Kenya in 1959, he necessarily must be categorized as a different type of African American. Ignoring the specific reference to Obama in this circumstance, I am curious to know what some of you all think about this characterization. Is it necessary to meet all of her requirements to be considered "black" in the United States today? Do you need to fit some historical mold? I think that there are some interesting cultural and cultural heritage questions that she raises. Personally, I disagree with the conclusion that she comes to, but I'm curious to know how other people might react to this. Moreover, I wonder how Marcus Garvey and W.E.B. DuBois (among others) might have reacted to her argument.

After reading the article "The Decision to Drop the Bomb" it definately opened my eyes towards other possible motivations for using the bomb on Japan. Obviously prior to this article and in other history classes the main motivation for dropping the bombs on Japan was to end the war. Most likely these along with the other possible motivations (intimidating Russia, following protocol, and actual weather interference)did have some effect. While reading the article, the main thing that sparked my interest was what would have happened if we had not dropped the bomb. After the world saw the utter destruction caused in Hiroshima and Nagasaki it did spark a world arms race that locked the superpowers of Russia and the United States into the Cold War. I feel that after seeing the bomb in use it might have prevented any further action to this day. Although scientists knew the power of the atomic bomb, the general public for the most part probably had no idea. The public's knowledge and fear of nuclear war has definately led to at least the bomb not being used anywhere since World War II. Hopefully this will be the case for a long time to come.

In response in part to Blaine's post about Truman's role in the decision to drop the bomb I believe that while that specific wording is in fact contrdictory, the conotation of the second quote is different than the first. Roosevelt launched the Manhattan project in haste because at that time the Germans were working hard to develop the same nuclear technology and we needed the Manhattan project or the mere precense of a bomb to secure ourselves. This is not to say that Roosevelt had the intention to drop the bomb at any point, this decision was given to the Truman administration. While it is understandable for After the Fact to attempt to treat administrations as a sum of their parts instead of individuals, it is unavoidable because any administration, no matter how influencing the advisors were, is encompassed in the name of the president, giving him the blame of a mistake or controversal decision. While the authors try to save Truman from blame for fear of individualizing an entire administration, it is unavoidable for the general public to blame the president for any problems with decision making. It comes with the job.

I've always found it interesting about how much influence Eleanor Roosevelt had in her husband's political career. Although their marriage was almost non existant, she was the driving force behind his presidency. In my last history class we talked alot about a town called Arthurdale in West Virginia. It was one of the New Deal projects that ulitmately failed yet the story behind it was quite fascinating. She tried to create a town from scratch and move coal miners there to become farmers and sustain their own community. This was just one of ER's plans to try to improve the nation under her husband's name.
Here is the link to the story behind it.
http://www.nps.gov/archive/elro/glossary/arthurdale.htm

I've been reading more about the New Deal and some of the social reforms, specifically regarding race relations, that Eleanor Roosevelt was either directly or indirectly responsible for. She influenced her husband to appoint a high number of African Americans to second level cabinet positions, and also to ensure they recieved 10% of welfare assistance payments. President Roosevelt, suprisingly, during this same time frame, despite how progressive his reputation has become did nothing about the 2nd class political status of blacks, and most disturbing refused to make lynching a crime (most likely to not lose favor with southern whites).

One paragraph in particular stood out to me as being rather contradictory in the After the Fact piece "The Decision to Drop the Bomb." The author is talking about the "rational actor model" in which he argues it is not fair to use a phrase such as "Truman dropped the bomb," because the phrase "treats the actions of government and large organizations as individuals." However, not three paragraphs later, the author uses the phrase "Roosevelt's decision to launch the Manhattan project." Was it truly Roosevelt's decision alone, or was it not without the aid of "advisers, agencies, bureaus, offices, and committees?" This may only be a small point, but I couldn't help but to point out the incongruity of the passage.

I must say I agree with David for the most part on these issues of race relations in California during the 1930’s, but I do think he left out some critical issues in his generalizations.

While I definitely would not dare compare it directly with slavery I do see David’s points in claiming the similarities. While several groups were selected for various work due to ethnicity there was not the subjugation on the mass scale that was seen in the South. I do however; believe that conditions were bad and often led to the exploitation of certain races such as the Chinese, Mexicans, and even lower-class whites.

I do not think that the Chinese Exclusion Act was as big of an impact due to David’s third bullet point. While I do think there would have been a stop in the rapid importation of labor for a brief time, I do believe that the stream of migrants and/or illegal immigrants from Mexico took their place in the lowest of the working class. This race of people is one easily subjugated by the landowners due to their lack of knowledge of customs and language. Also they were willing to work for less and could be driven off whenever the landowner saw fit. Therefore we have the tools in place that David mentioned that are very similar to the Jim Crow South.

In a continuation of ethnic discussion as related to immirgrants to California in the 1930s, there are several points I'd like to bring up.
-Race relations are fairly similar to those of slavery in that the landowners and farmers believed certain groups were 'more suitable' for some crops than others. The AFT text points out that Japanese farmers thought Philipino workers were better for rice as they were shorter in stature on average. The same view was held by Caucasians towards Mexican workers for stoop crops.
-The role of the Chinese Worker in California. Following the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 a lack of worker level labor was flowing into California as a result. I'd be interested to see the results of said act.
-The role of Mexican workers. The picture in the AFT of the women in the back of the truck reminds me of the situation that Mexican workers are still in and why. The efforts to accomadate a bilingual environment have most likely been a tool used to keep the workers from becoming educated(same type strategy as jim crow era, lack of education for african-americans to keep from moving up)

The biggest difference between the film Grapes of Wrath and the article “Dust Bowl Odyssey” was the fact that the characters and situations were portrayed very differently. Steinbeck portrays the Joad family and the other Okies as being victimized and desperate. The author of “Dust Bowl Odyssey” however, points out that the Joad family was not even from the area of the country that we now know as the dust bowl. This disregard for geography probably helped Steinbeck to romanticize and embellish his plot in order to make it more appealing to his readers. Steinbeck also leads his audience to believe that the Joads and their American peers could not find work in most cases. The After the Fact article lets the reader know that there was actually a lot more work available than Steinbeck led us to believe. Many workers turned down jobs because they felt that it was below them and more suited for minority laborers. While Grapes of Wrath will always be a story of American triumph in times of despair, it is nice to know the truth that lies behind the story.

I agree Joel. People should not overlook the significance of John Steinbeck’s outlook on this time. One could say he is a part of the Progressive school in his historical depiction of the Dust Bowl. John’s major focus seemed to be the aggression of Californians toward the migratory hordes of poor farmers. The only portrayal I didn’t agree with in the movie is that the presence of young men was missing. Most of the actors were much older then early thirties. This kind of gives the impression that the people uprooted were older and already settled into domestic life. The article in “After the Fact” states that the majority of the migration population were anywhere between early twenties to early thirties.
 As far as technology goes, the absence of a clear and profitable transaction between the newly acquired tractors and the sharecroppers was horrible. Was it at all possible for a distinct assimilation into modern technology instead of as a resort to regain larger treks of land? If the advantageous New Deal would have assisted with this problem earlier, there would be no need to increase the government aid budget.

I think that the dynamic of the relationship between "Dust Bowl Odyssey" and "The Grapes of Wrath" is a point worth considering. I found it interesting that the article interwove points of comparison between the reality that it presents and what is depicted in "The Grapes of Wrath" throughout. Barely a paragraph could pass without referencing some point of comparison. If nothing else, this shows what an institution Steinbeck's story has become within the American consciousness. That being said, I think it is important not to discount the story that Steinbeck presents as a result of some historical inaccuracies. Granted, they came from a section of Oklahoma that was not part of the "dust bowl" and the plights of non-white workers are completely ignored; however, the importance of works like Steinbeck's is not pain-staking allegiance to small details of historical accuracy, but rather to paint a much broader picture to show others that hardships were endured. Census numbers, charts, and textbooks are quickly forgotten by all but a few individuals focusing on academia, but a work like "The Grapes of Wrath" reach all types of people for generations to come. As I read "Dust Bowl Odyssey," I felt that this idea might have been somewhat forgotten in critiquing Steinbeck's story of the Joad family.

To briefly address a point that Todd made: Yes, technology is necessary and I would argue that it is generally also good. However, it is also not without it's problems. Years of harmful pesticide use have been extremely damaging to the environment (it took some time for us to find out just how harmful DDT really is) and those cheaper cars for everybody have emitted huge amounts of Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere, for which we are now seeing the consequences. I think it is also important to consider that, while technology can help many people, it also has the potential to leave many people behind. Those "unluckies" represent an ever-increasing divide in this country's income gap and between the "have's" and the "have not's." I think that we should be careful in adopting overly callous treatments of the hardships for the people who technology leaves behind.

On page 299 in Dust Bowl Odyssey it says "the tractor is a symbol for a complex process of agricultural reorganization through abesntee landownership, mechanization, and corporation." If you look at the situation and see the tractor as not just a tractor, but of technological progress in general, it seems as if the displacement of workers was inevitable. Technology, whether it comes through tractors that are more efficient and can do the work of 12 men, or through hybrid fertilizers and methyl bromide that defeat the crop destroying bugs who have developed immunity to mainstream pesticides, is a good thing. But in order to see the positive benefits of technology you should never look at the people who are directly affected, because that creates a bias. Yes, American car companies have scaled back lots of workers and tried to automate things as much as they can. They also send processes overseas where the labor is cheaper. This may cause a couple thousand Americans to be out of a job, but look at the huge public benefit as a whole. EVERYONE pays less money for better cars now. EVERYONE benefits from technological progress, even if it is at the unfortunate expense of a few unluckies (i guess i made that word up).
My point is, technology is necessary...but it gets a bad rap because of the people it displaces in the short run...but in the long run, technology is the only thing that is keeping America in the position to sustain itself. With our growing population and growing dependency on resources, food, etc, efficiencies in production (technology) keep us from sliding down the back side of diminishing returns.

To me there was really one thing that stuck out while watching this movie, and that was when one of the workers tried to question the man looking for workers who came out to the camp. He was asking him if he had papers, and he was automatically labeled a troublemaker and was going to be taken away. The thing i noticed most was the fact that just because there was an abundance of workers, they could treat them however they wanted, even though they needed them. I guess this is just further demonstrating the discrimination that Brandeon talked about. I had seen this movie before and actually read the book, and i guess seeing a second time i could really just focus on what stood out to me rather than try and follow along with what was going on.

I agree with Brandon and Eric. Two things that struck out about the movie were the discrimination Brandon talked about and the ruined lives Eric mentioned. It was truly amazing to me that so many migrant workers were hated. One of the things we always hear about in America is that "we take care of our own". Today, when ever this is a disaster or crisis of some kind the country unifies behind the relief effort. Not only was little to no relief effort portrayed in this film but there was a distinct sense of hostility toward the victims. To me that made the tragedy of this story all the worse. Like Eric said this story did an excellent job showing the struggles of those families. Generally I don't like movies that focus on tragedy but I learned something from this movie because I had never seen or read Grapes of Wrath.

I agree with Eric. I'm sure most of us have read the book or seen another version of the movie, but this one got the job done as well, so to speak. I think the bigger issue here is that of discrimination as a concept. I know most people view discrimination on a national level as a strictly race-based type of institution. And I totally understand why, it's the type we come in contact with the most often. But tension between socio-economic classes takes precedence above race during the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl in the West. In a "progressive era," I think America takes a throwback stance to many of the same situations in Industrial Prussia during the mid-1850s when most ideas of progressivism were first introduced. But I think it's the most interesting to watch how people, no matter how the outlook seems and what they might preach about community or brotherhood, automatically cling back to their own interests when crisis hits and how violent we become toward each other. No matter how progressive the early century might have been (or seemed to be), it might be similar to the Guilded Age; men easily returned to exploitation and cuelty the moment their own interests were threatened.

I thought that the movie, "The Grapes of Wrath" did an excellent job in depicting the struggles that were taken on by migrant workers during the 1930's. Even though at times the movie was quite humerous, it brilliantly portrayed how many lives were ruined during the depression. Farming families were not only hit with the depression, but people in states like Oklahoma had to deal with the dust bowl and its negative effects on their farming. I can't even imagine having a family farm taken away from me, and to have to uproot a family to go to a place where the work wasn't certain.

I also thought the article "Everyman His Own Historian" was interesting because it explained history is such simple terms that are not often thought of in dealing with history. It was an interesting realization for me to think of any regular person, ie "Mr. Everyman," as a historian just as much as a professor. History serves them in different ways and they depend on their memory "of things said and done" in different circumstances, but ultimately these are both historians. I thought the ideas of the past, present, and future were interesting. A few paragraphs about these ideas sounded like a philosophy argument defining one term by ambiguously using the others. I thought Becker's argument that we use past moments to define what we are experiencing as the present. Its very difficult to realize that the moment you are experiencing is the present and that very soon it will be in the past. I thought about this as I read the article and I'm thinking about it now and its just hard to wrap your mind around.

I also thought the articles on the Great Migration and the influential African American leaders during the last half of the 1900s were very interesting. Specifically, I was interested in what historicans are calling the Second Migration because its happening right now. I thought Marcus Garvey, Philip Randolph, JW Johnson and JR Morton were inspiring because they so fervently fought for their beliefs even the the face of great danger, ie - Marcus Garvey going to prison.

Yay, go Colts. Sorry, I had to put that out there. Ok, now down to business. I was very intrigued by the "Everyman His Own Historian" article. I thought it was very interesting how the author used everyman to convey what historians do and how their minds work. He says, "History is the memory of things said and done." I never really thought of history like that. I just assumed History was facts, but I was aware that historians do have bias. Mr. Everyman is a historian, but the important difference is that he can freely concentrate on only certain events and evidence because it is not his job to convey the information to others, he only needs to be able to pay his coal bill. This article really does give the average man importance in that every man is a historian, but also reminds us that a professional historian has a harder job to do. They can't only concentrate on certain events and only examine soem of the evidence, they have to study everything and rationalize it to pass it onto ordinary people.

In reading the Wikipedia articles, it is evident that ordinary people are taking it upon themselves to be historians when they write about events. Many people can discuss the Red Scare, but people will have differing views on what were the prominent events of the Red Scare. With Wikipedia, we know anyone can post information on it and most people are not professional historians, so they concentrate only on certain events and certain memories which influence what they tell you about a time period.

I also thought it was interesting how he says that the professional historians job "is not to repeat the past, but to make use of it, to correct and rationalize for common use Mr. Everyman's mythological adaptation of what actually happened." I thought about this and realized that there are many myths in history that at one point were thought to be true. I don't know why, but I thought of werewolves. At one point, werewoves were thought to have existed. Of course, you would say that that was because of fear and lack of education, but the idea held strong for a long time. Also, George Washington and the cherry tree. Humans are complex.

I found it intersting in class that one of the ideas of the untamed wilderness at the turn of the 19th century was that fear and disease. Of course this is all but to be expected especially after reading the Gospel of Germs. At the time little was known about sickness and its prevention. The outbreaks or typhiod fever and teburculosis among the wagon trains bound towards Oregon were just parts of a hazardous wilderness. However as resources were counted and medicine improved, the wild began to be seen as wondorous to behold and essential to protect. Being an Eagle Scout I have spent weeks at a time in very remote places without fear of disease except maybe from an undercooked beef stew. I find the wilderness as way to escape from pressures, and relate to the God who I believe created all of it. I find it ironic that Roosevelt's initial designation of national parks was for the betterment of the community. He believed the way parks would better society was by preserving America's resources, which is true. However I doubt he realized that they would become such powerful symbols of tourism and personal connection with the wild. It's interesting that the conservation movement was not only able to secure resources for the good of the nation as a whole, but seemingly unintentionally provide a venue of personal solace for each individual citizen as well.

The Gospel of Germs also got me thinking about slavery and especially the plantation owners. During slavery in the South malaria was very prevalent especially during the summer months and the planeters would often take their families to resorts or other homes where the possiblity of malaria and other disease was not as prevalent. Obviously the malaria was transmitted by mosquitos which found the swamps and lowlying rice fields as the perfect spawning ground. Slaves and members of the white lower class did not have this luxury. The rich planters could escape to the beach or upcountry areas where the diseases were not as prevalent. It shows how medicine has truly always been a luxury of the rich. Although having the financial means to move the family is not a medicine it did keep one more healthy, and was not available to most of society. We in the United States seem to take for granted these circumstances. Although modern healthcare still has a lot to be desire we are very lucky. For example the AIDS epedimic is spreading rapidly in Africa with no money to pay for treatment. Even today the ability to live a healthy life is somewhat of a upper class luxury.

A lot of people seem facinated about how much more development there will be medicinally in our lifetime. I can say, coming from a military background how much disease control and medical treatment has changed on the modern battlefield. I deployed to Kosovo in 1999 and we recieved a bare minimum in immunizations... just the essentials like Typhoid, Dyptheria, etc., but in preparation for Afghanistan we recieved those, and many additional such as Anthrax, and even took a weekly Malaria suppressant while in theatre (hence the term Malaria Monday). If you look throughout history it is a fact that in past wars disease accounted for far more casualties than combat injuries (Civil War statistics are staggering), I think this fact has definately affected the advancement of medicinal research and development. We'll see how the current situation contributes to this trend.

Edited by author 02-02-2007 04:44 PM
I think one of the most interesting things to notice in Tomes' treatment of the topic is the somewhat cyclical nature of the public's concern and fear about germs and disease. In the 19th century and before, people generally had to accept the reality of a young death from some mysterious disease. As science became more sophisticated and began to understand the causes, people reacted very strongly and worked hard to take measures to protect themselves and their families from disease. However, because there was such success and the changed customs and behaviors became accepted and commonplace, an entire generation was created that really didn't have an appreciation or really even a proper respect for the power of disease. Yet, we're now moving back into a period of much greater worry as new, deadly diseases are emerging and transmission spread globally at unprecedented rates due to improved transportation and globalization. It will be interesting to see if the technology and medicine can once again catch up so that the next generation might not have the need to worry about AIDS, etc.

I'm pretty sure I've heard many of the arguments found in The Gospel of Germs before. But I never heard more than one or two of them in the same discussion, so I never really pieced them together, and in general, I guess I never really pondered the subject of the evolution of sanitation in modern society. I also found it to be pretty interesting how information on disease resistance made it from the labratory to the common public.

Casey makes an interesting point too. I often wonder how much more advanced medicine will become before I die; how new technologies will lead to breakthrough medical procedures. Tomes's book does make one even more aware of the ever changing world of disease prevention.

To be honest, I had never actually thought about how Americans came to believe in the existence of germs and how immensely their lives changed once they had, so this book was very interesting to me. It is hard to fathom that there actually was a time when common wisdom believed that people with diseases gave off some sort of mysterious intangible substance capable of making others sick. I found it very interesting that the pursuit of gentility and politeness, not the fear of disease, fueled the revolution in cleanliness that began among the colonial elite and gradually spread to the urban middle classes. Then, gradually the older theories of atmospheric infection gave way to a more modern understanding of how diseases were transmitted by casual contact, food and water contamination, insect vectors, and healthy human carriers and these revelations prompted collective public health practices and education programs.

I agree Blaine. The advertisement methods of the National TB Association (NTA) were really wild. Really, this was the first time advertisement was taken to a whole new level. My favorite was the way companies or health organizations used children as a way to guilt trip the housewives and cause paranoia in the common worker.
 “By combining short texts with arresting pictures, advertisers sought to associate objects with the power to convey such tangible qualities.”
Basically, this kind of advertisement frightened the public into awareness for educational purposes or to sell consumer goods.

Probably the thing that was most interesting to me about The Gospel of Germs was the fact that so many different people invested so much of their time and energy to get the ideas about germs, sanitation, and general cleanliness where they are today. From primitive purging rituals all the way up to the modern-day use of antibiotics, hundreds, if not thousands of people have collaborated to get us where we are today. It makes me wonder: If we have come this far in a few hundred years, how much further will we advance in just my lifetime? With a major focus on modern-day problems such as the AIDS virus, Tomes shines an interesting light on the way that we view past advancements and how our current advancements might be viewed by subsequent generations.

The public service post about the killing flies reminded me of some kind of youthful impression about bugs in general; that when spotted they should be killed on sight. Prior to this era I ponder whether or not American's had a fear of bugs or if they were just ignored.

In that time period religion was already becoming less and less a part of peoples' lives. With the emergence of industrialization, mass production, and the consumerisom that resulted, people had less time to devote to religion. When modern science came about people realized that they were getting more results from that than they were from going to chuch 5 times a week.
In my opinion, Gospel of Germs gives an interesting portrayal of American History. Instead of the standard blow by blow of events, it goes into one particular aspect of life and how it transformed american society.
  
One thing I have always found interesting is how once women get the vote, after such a tremendous struggle, then immediately shed their traditional womanly ways and embrace the new mentality of the 20's.

What David touched on briefly and what I thought was an interesting part of the book was how advertising was used to increase awareness about these "invisible" diseases. Most notably, TB workers used trademarks such as the cross and short slogans as a reminder to Americans of the dangers of TB and other diseases. This was not always successful, as one of my favorite examples from the book is when the TB committee put up posters in Italian neighborhoods of "a Venetian view surrounded by TB slogans." The committee soon learned that this picture had no effect on the lower-east side Italians because they mostly came from Southern Italy and disliked their Venetian neighbors. Oops. What I thought was most interesting is the number of angles that the advertisers took to educate the public about TB. Short, catchy, "childrens" slogans, moralistic behaviors "Spitting is immoral and unhealthy" and even fear-based slogans such as "death lurks on the filth of a fly's feet." The breath of the advertising was interesting to me, as these committees had to reach a great number of audiences from the immigrant poor to the wealthy who were capable of buying household sanitizers.

What is so surprising about the rise of science over religion when talking about bacteria? Its not a shock to me. What could the church do? It wasn't there job. Unless you want to get figurative and say that churches have the job of healing the "sick". But we all know what "sick" means in each different context. So of course science had to take over and start gaining peoples trust. Technology needed time to catch up with the diseases and bacterias that had been invading peoples lives. And people needed to place some trust, not faith, in the science. It's trust, not faith, because all they did was believe with their minds, faith is a heart thing.

Another overarching influence seen throughout this book is how critical public awareness was in preventing the spread of bacteria. For the first time, people were having to think about "flies, fingers, and food" (p176). Also, people became wary of handshakes, kiss greetings, etc. This shook up social customs. Much like today during flu season, some people do not shake hands. We know all of this stuff nowadays but back then it was brand new, and someone had to get the word out.

Edited by author 02-01-2007 11:11 PM
After reading Woodrow Wilson’s fourteen points i believe that they would have given the global community some sense of diplomacy after Word War I, but without the League of Nations peace was bound to fail, as there were little chance of supporting the points without America. I understand America’s hesitancy to back the League of Nations but in my opinion if Americans had at least some sense of applicable knowledge about world politics then it would have been ratified. The fact that America went back into isolation after WWI proves that there was little concern for the world in general in our nation during this time. Which does not make sense as a result of its entry in the world war America was recognizing its power in international relations. It can be argued that WWII could have been prevented if there had been a worldwide organization to prevent the growth of Nazi Germany.

Therefore, East Prussia would have never been invaded and taken over be the Soviets, thus it would still be in existence as the greatest nation....ever

One of the more interesting i found in reading the Gospel of Germs is the idea of how the germ theory of the time was used politically to assert social control over the people. It seems odd that when the author discusses the link between the acceptance of the theory by the people and the modernist outlook she completely ignores the mid-twentieth century social hygiene movement which linked personal cleanliness behavior to a persons social value. Social hygienists tried to rid society of the germs as weapons against genetic contamination. The link between germ theory and social hygiene brings up one of the author's earlier ideas about what made the U.S. germ problem unique was the way in which germs were politicized. The social hygiene movement was international in scope just as were the forced sterilization laws that accompanied it. These laws forwarded the already visible social change toward a more germ conscious society. I want more snow days...

I thought one interesting fact coming from the Gospel of Germs was when Tomes describes a picture of a public drinking water dispenser. Before the early 1910's there were common cups supplied to water fountains. After people became aware of the bacteria found in human mouths, disposable cups were used instead of a common one to drink from. I can remember my grandfather talking to me about a big bucket of cold water located on his front porch. It had a common "dipper" that everyone used. Whenever he would talk about this I would be appalled and couldn't believe people actually drank water like this.

Also another part that struck me interesting in the book was the idea that many people struggled to keep their homes sanitary. luxury sanitary goods and services could not be purchased by poor families and only by affluent ones. Tomes talks about the old style plumbing fixtures which did not help prevent the spreading of the germs. Tomes further explains this idea later in the book. She explains how poor wifes would have to work so hard in order to keep their homes somewhat sanitary. If one of their children would come down with something and die, they would be blamed for, essentially, not working hard enough for keeping their living quarters sanitary. It's amazing that these sanitation luxuries were not really available to poorer families until about the 30's.

The Gospel of Germs presented to me a rather interesting subtopic that goes along with early 20th century America's growing faith in science. That would be the science of architecture. The shift of materials used in construction of first bathrooms, then other rooms, and finally the home itself is rather amazing. The shift from each style and belief in materials and methods coincides with the dating of the history of germs/sanitation/public health. This is similar to historian's use of objects and devices to match it's specific use in a time period of history (from the after the fact reading).

I agree with Miller and Cunningham's thinking about science over religion...two decades after the sanitation movements signal the Scopes Monkey Trial, a fitting continuation of sciences growing bounds over religion.

I found the use of sex appeal interesting as well, one of the pictures in the middle...

I definitely agree with this the statements of William about the growing faith placed in science rather than religion. I cannot remember one church being mentioned taking a proactive in the peoples’ sanitation woes. Rather scientist are willing to go above and beyond the call of duty to investigate and try to solve the problems of illness in the early 20th century. One way I noticed this was the way that the movement of proper sanitation is marketed as almost a revival movement, as large amounts of people were being reached through massive publicity. Also these ads were not normal billboards, they were very advanced for their time and were trying to touch a inner fear within people (much like the 1st Great Awakening tried to touch people’s fear of losing salvation.) Therefore I would say that this movement is very similar to a religious fervor in the nation, minus the religion and plus the science.

Brandon, I think you are partially right about the title of the book. My impression about the title Gospel of Germs was that people began to place their faith in science more so in religion. I think that this is the first time in history that science really starts to play a big role in people's lives and they start to believe in it to the point were it takes over and becomes their religion. You can see this with the elevation of the scientist in everyday society and with the rapid adoption of many things that science and technology create. I do, however, agree that to believe in these germs requires a "leap of faith" and that is also what the author may be going for.

One of the things I found most interesting was the shifts that occured in public health and how they were showed in this book. For example the shift from treating the environment as a breading ground for bacteria and instead treating the patient. This is a huge step as it truely gets at the root of the problem, the person carrying the disease. What I also found interesting was in doing this scientists and public health officials began to distance themselves from the more moralistic and social pushes of the Progressive party, which began to falter at this time. It is interesting to think about, but if "new public health" had not arisen, then we probably would still be using old ideas about germs, if it hadn't completely died with the Progressives.

I thought the Gospel of Germs was very interesting. One particular part of the book which interested me was the Atlanta race riot in 1906, and the formation of the Atlanta Anti- Tubercolosis and Visiting Nurse Association in 1907. In Atlanta, the white and African American people were very hostile towards each other. The Africans Americans realized tuberculosis was a problem for their people, but the white people in Atlanta did not take notice of it until they were concerned with their own health. "So long as whites believed that "germs had no color line," they could ill afford to let their laudresses, cooks, and servants fall prey to the disease"(231). Lucretia Burns Hope and Rosa Lowe were instrumental in setting up better health care clinics and better health education for African Americans. They used this health scare to clean up the African American neighborhoods and schools. They got the white elite to build a new African American library and parks.
I find it amazing how, even though the white people were only cooperating with the African Americans because they feared for their own health, these two different groups came together on certain issues which resulted in the betterment of health in the African American community in Atlanta. I guess the phrase, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" applies here. People found a common enemy in germs and Tuberculosis. You can see this again with the drive to help immigrants better home hygiene. Of course there also the division of people when they fear for their health. You can see this with throughout the book and with AIDS. When AIDS first was identified, people believed it to be a homosexual virus.

I guess I'll start this one off. Like Dr Benson mentioned in class, the most prominent thing to me was the sense of religious imagry. I can see a hsitorian making such a comparison between a new and old orthodoxy in the context that the change in germ theory was quite a revolution. But the imagry of this time isn't limited to the book. Perhaps I'm missing something, but in most documents I've read from this time, from those that lived during this period in history, religious imagry and reference take some prominence as well. I especially see where the role of faith at this time might come into its own in the fact that germ theory was based in the laboratory. The nature of germs in general requires some faith even on our part these days because it's obvious; we can't see them. And in an era of "see it to believe it" (or smell it to believe it), I can see a correlation between the two. I think the phrase "whited sepulchurs" had a nice correlation with the term "guilded age" in general. The state of economic interests in general was that of the water closet; just a facade for something rotten underneath.

So in essence, they were left with something they needed to have faith in based on reason instead of experience. And the opposition most germ theorists faced was a refultation of this "faith" as it were, which I see as totally understandable at the time.

I'm sure many of the conflicts we have today between Darwinism and Creationism in the courts and in the schools isn't new. Germ theory fit perfectly into these new scientific theories, and of course, those who had faith in these latched on quickly. So this revolution in science was indeed a revolution in faith. You're trading faith in divine punishment (if you'd be so willing to give me a throwback to the Middle Ages) or divine intervention for faith in another living thing that you can't see or avoid; kind of like the hand of God. But I'm not sure, I can draw correlations in the book to other things in history, but the issue of religious imagry in the time period in general leaves a bit to be desired and a bit more to be studied.

Anyways, have a great snow day, make a snowman, and drink some hot chocolate. South Carolina's been missing this weather for a while.

Since it is a snow day, please follow the same procedures as we used on Tuesday. Everyone in class is expected to post on the Gospel of Germs book. You may make your contribution any time during the day.

I have set up a page with links to tutorials on Wiki editing, as well as a Wiki sandbox for you to play in, at:
http://facweb.furman.edu/~corth/wiki/media...php?title=HST21home

Todd, Roosevelt was a conservationist; Muir was a preservationist. And I think Muir was tapping into a sense of duty on the part of the American people. The religious writing style is obvious; it is a hevenly mandate to protect God's creation. But "habitability" on Roosevelt's part was a combination of the best interests of humanity and the preservation of nature. Instead of pure preservation, he recognized the practicality of conserving our use of nature while still using it in the first place. We HAVE to use nature; just not as much as before. Beauty and habitibility aren't contradictory. Once again the progression of the state begins a trend of dissent against the establishement (economic and profit interests) by the few lone voices who see room for improvement. In this case, Roosevelt adopted an intermediary between two views of nature (that for economic gain and that for total preservation) into a system that was better all around for the state as a whole. But especially at this time, the sense of a religious mandate from Muir was very successful at rallying those who didn't buy in to Darwinism or biblical criticism that was "in vogue" at the time. I just think it is interesting.

I don't think its fair to say that "Americans really just didn’t care about the environment" (Casey Miller). I think that with anything new it takes discovery and learning lessons in order to know the consequences of their actions. When the settlers first got here, they saw the trees and natural resources as ways to better their lives then, not showing much foresight into the future. The technology was not available yet for them to know that the resources were indeed exhaustible. I think it is a relatively new trend for current generations to scale down their usage of materials and resources in order to show compassion for future generations. My grandparents would always tell me that they worry for my generation and my kids generation because of the lack of natural resources and forests in America. And I guess its our job in this generation to do all we can to ensure that our children and our children's children can live a fulfilling life.

Roosevelt's quote, "We are striving to add in all ways of the habitability and beauty of our country" seems to be contradictory. Habitability seems to me allowing the earth to be populated and filled with homes and cities and businesses (aka Concrete Jungle). And beauty, in this context, seems to relate more to some of the things that Muir loved about the forests like "such variety, harmony, and triumphant exuberance" in nature. I guess the only way to have both is for governments to set up land reserves, national parks, trails, etc. John Muir says, ""Most people are on the world, not in it; have no conscious sympathy or relationship to anything about them, undiffused, separate, and rigidly alone like marbles of polished stone, touching but separate." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Muir). I think that he couldn't be more right! How many people go through the day without looking at the sunrise, sunset, pretty mountains, waterfalls, green grass, falling leaves, etc?

In reading these two articles, I would argue that they are fundamentally similar. As several people have noted already, they are both arguments for the conservation of natural resources (i.e. forests, etc.). The fact that they use very dissimilar language and tone in order to make this point is more a matter of personal style and knowing the intended audience who each of them is attempting to persuade. Muir does take a much more romantic approach; however, he incoporates into this the practical argument that this is what other civilized nations have done (e.g. France, Switzerland, Russia, and Japan). He also notes that the opposite has occurred in the wastelands of Spain and Palestine. This serves to provide practical weight to his otherwise visual and emotional argument. On the other hand, Teddy Roosevelt is submitting a report to the two houses of Congress of the United States. Obviously, the tone and focus of this report should be very different than the more romantic article. By addressing the need for the nation's forests, inland transportation of waterways, scarce mineral resources, and the economics of losing these irreplaceable resources, he is arguing that national efficiency is dependent on these things and they should be protected thusly. Essentially it is an effective argument for common sense. My reading of these two articles convinces me that, while each author suggests different reasons for doing so, the simple fact remains that their goal is one in the same.

I agree with Eric there is tension between the ideals of these two articles. Both articles value Nature but for entirely different reasons. Muir longs to see nature protected because of its beauty. He uses romanticism and I think he uses nationalism to push his agenda which save our forests. He specifically cites that American forests were “the best he (God) ever created.” That uses nationalism to inspire Americans to step up and and save our forests and if they doesn’t work he does a great job of romanticizing almost every part of those forests. Muir uses tender language and really tries to calm the reader. Meanwhile Teddy uses harsh factual language and does not romanticize anything. The main reason he gives to conserve the forests is a fear that if we do not we will run out of resources. The contrast between these two articles I think best represents the tension that exists between as Eric says “Nature romanticism and technological mastery of nature”

 Nature romanticism and technological mastery of nature are indeed in great competition with each other. However, in some ways conservation of nature can benefit society according to Muir in "The American Forests". He talks about how most civilized nations are compelled to care for nature and their forests. He seems to argue that it is to their benefit that they conserve them and use them in ways that isn't wastefull. He argues that laws instituted by the government not only do not protect the destruction of the timber in the forests, but the laws do not state, most importantly, where the timber is most needed.

After reading these two articles, it seems that from the colonial times all the way up to the beginning of the twentieth century, Americans really just didn’t care about the environment. As with the articles we read yesterday, capitalism and essentially greed seemed to drive most of American society. There seemed to be no remorse for damage done in the past and no intention of looking to make positive changes in the future.

“There is little hope that the bringing home of personal guilt to any one of the many who took desperate chances with the lives of those workers in Washington Place may teach a salutary lesson of official or private responsibility.”

This quote from the Literary Digest in 1912 gives one a feeling that the responsibility of Issac Harris and Max Blanck as the factory’s owners was meaningless. No one was charged for this failure in the system.

By the way Joel, some of those children in the Ludlow Massacre were definitely too young to be employees of the Colorado Fuel and Iron Company, I agree. Yet, how many children were killed in factories and other places while being employeed under the table? How many children were scalped or mangled in the cogs of the machines. Death and accidents didn’t have an age limit. Obviously, the strain of working under those conditions was a family effort.

I think David's idea of the workers becoming martyrs is an interesting one. In reading the article about the Ludlow Massacre there is one person who is a perfect example of this: Louis Tikas, the Ludlow camp's main organizer. Tikas pursued his goal so fervently and literally gave his life so that his cause could have life. I found it inspiring how much he cared about the wellbeing of the workers in Ludlow.

I also noticed some of those same similarities in the conditions of the workers and those of slavery. The workers are constantly subjected to the will of their employer while working (for the most part) for that employer’s benefit rather than their own. For example, in that time period “the miners were paid by tons of coal mined and not reimbursed for ‘dead work’ like laying rails or work that simply made the mines operable.” The employers took advantage of the miners as often as possible and rarely compromised. Another tactic used by the employers to decrease possibility of dissention among workers was to group together immigrants who couldn’t communicate with each other and therefore couldn’t organize into effective unions.

Also, something that I thought was interesting about the Lochner v. New York case of 1905 was the development of the Supreme Court’s opinion on “right to free contract” and the differing opinions between the federal government and employers who see no reason why they should not be able to pay workers for the work they complete. It seems so distant to read about the conflicts that surrounded issues that cause no conflict today.

Ben I like what you are saying about the owner-worker relations and I want to take it one step further. The owners were almost completely unaffiliated with their workers and that was evident in the strikes themselves. Like Mason argued the workers did live like slaves and the owners could have easily parted with some money to at least improve their living conditions. Even when the strikes began and they began to lose MORE MONEY they still refused to meet the workers conditions. In each of the articles, the Employer's failure to negotiate lead to deaths and chaos. When I think of strikes I think of strenuous negotiations not local militias scattering picket lines through the use of gunfire.
This situation actually reminded of another event in History. On one side you have a tyrannical employer who uses those below him for profit. When those below him rebel he attempts to use force to suppress the revolt. This reminded me of pre American Revolution conflicts. King George tried to make money at the expense of the colonists and when the colonists rebelled he sent in troops. An event Like the Boston Massacre reminded me of the Ludlow Massacre. So I guess what I am trying to say is that when those in power refuse to negotiate with those below them it will most always end in conflict. Another way to say that is to maintain order compromise is crucial. I know it’s a stretch but that’s where my brain went with it

Honestly David I would like to believe that with all the "progress" we have made as a result of the martyers of the past thing would be different for these aliens. However if you look at the general consesus of Americans, many believe that these immigrants are a problem with society, not an important cog in the economic machine. I believe that an accident concerning a non-American citizen would not end in a very "Constituional" outcome. Many would argue that this should be the case because they are not citizens, but in many cases these aliens keep the economy going. I believe that this is a volitail issue that will eventually come to the foreground in American society, and I hope that we can learn from those strikes of the early 20th century in dealing with it.

It is shocking to read these accounts of how workers were treated at the beginning of the twentieth century. The grim conditions, hazards and lack of respect that they had to face everyday along with the obvious constant exploitation by the owners/investors are dehumanizing. These workers had to work long and hard shift with few amenities and little pay. Not even the most basic things were provided to most of these workers as we see in “Life in the Shop” when they discuss how the females didn’t even have changing rooms! These things compounded would be bad enough but the fact that they aren’t even completely safe and protected and could end up dying in their work place as we see from the factory fire example just makes it all that much worse.

What do these documents tell us about norms and expectations regarding worker-owner relations at the beginning of the 20th Century? There is no relationship between owners and workers. The owners of one factory did not even know the wages they were divying out, neither did they know the exact number of those employed. This seems the age of reckless abandon in the workplace.

With thousands of immigrants flocking to the US, they could not all be accounted for, nay, barely any could be accounted for and hence sweatshops and persecution rises up to meet them. Without anyone being held responsible for their actions or work standards, the atrocious conditions we have just read about ran amuck. It took dozens of these episodes to make any sort of change in the work evironment, and the Unions, at least in my perspective, seemed to slow things down and build up a mob mentality. The shift had to go from solely profits to a more humanitarian outlook on the workplace. The immigrants were here to stay and they had as much right to live comfortably as any worker did. Unfortunately it took several of these horrendous fires and massacres to finally get a step in the right direction. But strangely, the Fire! document mentions the fact that current sweatshops exist mainly because immigrants do not wish to deal with governmental bodies here in the US. First it was a lack of control, now it is too much.

In reading through these accounts and articles it was very interesting that Clara Lemlich compared the conditions in these factories with slavery. When taking a closer look it appears this comparison is not far fetched. Owners of factories controlled basically every aspect of their worker's lives. This included working hours, wages, and often where they lived and in what stores they shopped. The factories' managers or overseerers were in charge of maximizing production no matter what the cost. It is saddening to think that an event like the Triangle Fire had to occur to spark massive reforms. These other events, such as the Pullman strike, Lawrence Strike, and Ludlow massacre, all garner only slight reforms in the industrialization period. It seems that other Americans viewed these poor conditions as a "necessary evil" to advance the country. It is also important to reflect on these events in terms of today's policies. Yes, reforms have definately helped the worker of America, but in many situations we see that a major event (often tragic) must occur to get the attention of the general public.

I believe that Chris is exactly right when he said "Either way, they cerainly were martyrs for the economic and industrial success of the nation, as cold as that may sound." The Triangle Factory Fire served as a catalyst for change in the early 20th century for low level workers. Unfortunatly it seems that history has a habit of proving that only through the sacrifices of the improvished that their children prosper.

The conditions that were present in the Triangle Factory struck me as being possibly similar to slavery. Although the 13th amendment was by now already in existence for a half century plus, forms of slavery still existed; and the argument for their current existence is entirely feasible too! The reports of poor worker conditions struck me as interesting as these modern sweatshops generally employ illegal aliens; would these workers even have protection if a fire/disaster occured in the workplace.
Thoughts?

In the article about the Triangle fire they discussed the use of sweat shops in the US. They stated that “recent studies conducted by the U.S. Department of Labor found that 67% of Los Angeles garment factories and 63% of New York garment factories violate minimum wage and overtime laws. Ninety-eight percent of Los Angeles garment factories have workplace health and safety problems serious enough to lead to severe injuries or death.” We talk about all these difficulties that took place decades ago, but unfortunately are still occurring today. How do you think these numbers (listed above) will change once the minimum wage goes up to $7.50? Do you think more work will be exported overseas or working conditions will worsen here in the US? How do you think our economy will shift, as we look back at our history?

With all the suffering that these workers went through at the turn of the century, I'm somewhat supprised that the communist movement wasn't as strong in America as it was in, say, czarist Russia. The suffering may not of been as wide spread as it was in Russia, but it was just if not more harsh and severe. I know the IWW was a socialist movement, but why did it fail after it made all of its gains? Almost every artical we read criticized capitolism and industrialism for their need for profit and lack of interest in the condition of employees, but it seems as though little justice was served for these crimes. So why was there a socialist revolution in Russia, but not America?

Todd, you're obviously right about how horrible the conditions faced by immigrant workers were...but look at the long term effect. Because of what they went through, our country developed the way it did. I'm from Northeast Pennsylvania, and my family began there as immigrant coal miners. Their trials made possible my famly's success. This is one of those cases where with trial came progress...If conditions didn't get as bad as they did they never would have gotten better. Also you need to consider, were those "martyrs at the hands of industrial greed," actually martyrs for the future success of their descendants? Either way, they cerainly were martyrs for the economic and industrial success of the nation, as cold as that may sound.

First of all, I would tend to be rather somewhat reserved in referring to the Pullman, Lawrence, and especially Ludlow strikes as a success. While these actions did provide some immediate changes and foundations for more long term changes, the employers were – in the case of Lawrence, for example – able to 'chisel away at the improvements in wages and working conditions.' Also, one of the results of labor organization was the firing of union activists and insertion of spies by the employers to monitor the actions and organization of the workers. I think that it is very important to keep in mind that each of these situations, while notable, was just one very small piece of a much larger, more complex, and slow developing movement. In the case of Ludlow, I would be especially cautious in using the term "success" to describe it. This was, after all, a massacre; and, to look down the inscription of the monument, there were eleven deaths of children age 11 or younger (5 of whom were under the age of 5 and 2 of whom were less than one year old). While the resulting effects and improvements cannot be ignored, it is very important to remain respectful to the cost.

This also brings the issue of violence that results from labor actions to the forefront. Each of these situations saw violence and vandalism. In the case of Lawrence and Ludlow, deaths resulted from the the labor strike. First, let me be very clear that I am not making a value judgment for either side. That being said, these strikes are inherently mob actions involving a large, concentrated group of people gathering over a highly emotional and volatile issue. This is the perfect breeding ground for groupthink to take over and personal responsibility to be lost. Essentially, the same thing happens for a large group of law enforcement officials who are supposed to keep the peace but are confronted with a large group of potentially explosive individuals. Naturally, this is going to put law enforcement officials on edge and potentially make them a bit more trigger-happy than usual. Unfortunately, the likelihood of excessive force and violence on both sides is greatly increased as a result.

In terms of the Triangle Factory Fire, it is absolutely deplorable, and almost unimaginable today, that such a situation may possibly occur. The fact that the doors were locked and that the fire escape bent under the weight of the people before leading to nowhere safe is indicative of a much more widespread problem. I felt like the publications depicting the event did an very good job in their treatment of what had happened and implied or specifically noted that this was an inexcusable occurence. Especially poignant was Literary Digest's assertion that, "Capital can commit no crime when it is in pursuit of profits." As far as the recommendations in correcting this problem and preventing future such accidents are concerned, they seem to be sound. However, they can only be as effective as they are enforced, and, in the early 20th Century, I would be suspect of how stringent that enforcement was.

Why did it take so long for workers to unionize? Were the rules against long bathroom breaks and no talking a preventative measure of controlling the slaving immigrants?
It seems that the capitalist foundation had no means of standing on its own bottom during the Progressive era. The wanton disregard of the factory owners for the safety of those responsible for their income is unbelievable. Without the brave people who gave their lives in the tragedies of the Ludlow Massacre of 1914 and the Triangle Factory Fire in 1911, the lives of other downtrodden immigrants and factory workers would have been short and painful. Was it necessary though?
In response to the non-action of the workers communities, horrific scenes of fire or riots were necessary to gain the attention of larger groups of unions in order to create reform. Why did some of the unions cease to operate after the calamity died down? Was it because of the financial complications of running an organization? Most of the members of the union were receiving well below minimum wage. So many of these industrial slaves had to pay ridiculous fines for tardiness, slow season (workers pay to work during slow seasons), and all they received for overtime, besides sore eyes and a severe backache was a piece of apple-pie! How quickly could the manager replace an unhappy worker? I’m sure the release of an employee would have a new worker planted in the formers place so quickly that even the foreman or woman wouldn’t know their name or where they came from.

Miller...hi. Since all of these strikes were well organized and large in number, wouldnt that ring an alarm to the government that says, "maybe we need to do something with these working conditions so that the people don't continue to get angry". I think they tried to control it as much as they could by using force and hoping that everything would return to normal, but that didn't work. Just because a massacre happens, doesn't mean that the workers stop caring about their personal rights and safety. You make it seem like its the workers fault for getting so organized and caring so much about the working conditions. Like if only those dumb workers would just keep busy, the feds wouldnt have to come and shoot them all up. It's not the workers fault, they were exercising their rights to freedom.
Which brings this to an interesting place, because if you look at the main reason that these immigrants come to America in the first place it was for freedom. America is the LAND OF OPPORTUNITY!...right? "Instead, they faced lives of grinding poverty and horrifying working conditions" (http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/trianglefire/narrative3.html). They are living in "Five Cents a Spot" (After the Fact-Mirror with a Memory pg217) housing, and doing laundry in the same place where people are dumping feces out the window. This doesnt seem like a better life to me. I think someone should have went back over to Europe and told all these immigrants to stay where they were. They probably could have made a better life for themselves in their home country with countrymen and women who held similar religious and cultural views, instead of becoming "martyrs at the hands of industrial greed." (http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/trianglefire/narrative1.html)

I found it interesting how the strikes and the Triangle Waist Company fire really brought out the worst in some people. The Ludlow strike and massacre of 1914, demonstrated how merciless and uncomprimizing some people can be. The militia murdered the leader of the strike along with a couple other men and burned the camp, which killed several women and children. In the Triangle Waist Company fire of 1911, the owners, Max Blanck and Isaac Harris, knew the dangerous conditions of the factory and did nothing. They were first put on trial under charges of manslaughter in the first and second degree, but because the jury was not convinced that the Washington Place door "was locked and locked with the knowledge of the defendants," they were acquitted. The author of the Literary Digest article felt that the justice system failed to bring justice. He felt "that not only are Harris and Blanck guilty, but that the whole class to which they belong is guilty." This really makes me doubt the supposed greatness of civilized man. Maybe Montaigne and Rousseau were correct. Civilized man is greedy, selfish, and corrupt. Savages are noble because they have not been tainted by civilization. I do think that overall, civilized man is good and moral, but there are certainly many examples that can be used to back up Montaigne and Rousseau.

While I do believe that popular support helped make these strikes successful, but one must realize that these three events were extremely large and somewhat organized. For example, after a week the Lawrence strike had over 20,000 people taking part! The police, factory owners, and those in charge of putting out the strike would have little control over these unprecedented numbers. Thus the forces in charge were forced to take drastic measures to put down the workers, for example the Ludlow massacre. With large-scale union such as the ARU taking charge these workers could mobilize and effectively shut down a city’s transportation system. Therefore, with the combining of effective leadership, large scale strikes, and growing public sympathy for the worker, these strikes were no able to succeed.

William, I think you hit on something with the necessity of popular support, but the role of the workers can be expanded. I honestly sometimes hate putting theory I've learned in so many other classes to a particular situation, but this one seems to be necessary to the point. The constant struggle between order and dissent is the essence of progress within the United States; better put, it is the essence of progress within any state.

In this case, the Pullman Strike and the Ludlow Massacre were the instances of dissent against the current order. Both the current order and the workers, especially the organizers of the union, had a role to play in the synthesis of a new state of affairs. The workers were the ones who bought into a greater Idea that was indeed transcendental of the status quo. Though their actions did receive condemnation from the courts and from the public, the excessive measures taken by the workers were the most important aspect to gaining the harsh responces necessary to bringing a greater idea (in this case an Idea of greater freedom through workers' rights) to the consciousness of the public.

I loved Joe Ettor's quote from his closing statement in the Wikipedia article:

"...The scaffold has never yet and never will destroy an idea or a movement...an idea consisting of a social crime in one age becomes the very religion of humanity in the next..."

It is by necessity that the public defies any instance of dissent at that particular time, otherwise no strides in the movement would have been taken. The attention given the workers for their boycott was their avenue for influence. From the two extremes (economic interests and absolute personal liberty), the creation of a new intermediary that furthers the development of society can be created; workers against public sentiment brings the idea of the plight of the workers to the dissenting public eye.

It seems that the only reason that these (Pullman, Lawerence, and Ludlow strikes) succeded was because of popular support for the workers. Not the strikers, the businesses, and certainly not the government had any real affect in bettering working conditions. Sure the strikers have to be given credit, since it is them after all who are dying in the factories and going on strike, but it seems that if it weren't for the popular support for these strikes they would not have been successful. Even then, the only way that the strikes received broad popular support was because of overly harsh responses. I was amazed at the amount of anti-unionism in America at the time. Take any of the three strikes mentioned above, and there is no real support for the strikers, but more of a public outcry against the reaction taken upon the strikers. The Pullman Strike, for example, "most public sentiment was against the boycott" and the Supreme Court even upheald the injunction used against the boycott. I just find it interesting that no one really seemed to care about the workers.

Casey and Blaine, I agree totally with your statements. It seems that the factory owners could care less about their factory workers. This is very apparent for the Asch building factory owners. It said in some of the articles that they basically subcontracted people to hire workers for them, and pay them whatever wages they felt adequate. These wages were indeed inadequate to a great extent. Immigrants wanted to come to the United States for freedom and a better life. However, this proved not to be the case in the 19th and 20th centuries. The Triangle Fire illustrates just how poor and unsafe the working conditions were during this time.

The Triangle Fire seems to be a watershed/turning point in the fight for better working conditions for workers. It is amazing that something like this horrific and tragic had to happen in order for people to finally realize that changes needed to take place. I do not think that the trials and reforms responded adequately to the situation. The recommendation from the Commission said that smoking was to be prohibited, along with the removal of rubbish, and developing protection of gas jets. However they decided not to install fire alarms saying, “Dangers from panic and excitement caused by an alarm” would essentially outweigh the advantages to be gained from it. It amazes me that something this tragic could happen and for people to not strive for factories to use fire alarms.

My sister is a ballet teacher for the Arts Integration Program for the Greenville County School System. Everyday she works with kids who have been wearing socks caked in red dirt for a week. They smell, they shout obscenities at each other, and they urinate on each others clothes in the locker room. Their ages range from 5 to 8. They are all from different cultural backgrounds, but their situation is the same. Their eyes light up at the thought of something new, something they have never experienced. No one can tell me that they are willing to replicate the lives of their parents. I’m sure every time the teachers ask these kids what they want to be when they grow up, their answers are the same “I want to be a doctor, a lawyer, a singer, and etc. Although, their teachers know most of the girls will have two kids by the time their 21 and most of the boys will be in jail or selling drugs. Yet, most of the teachers have seen this before and it is just too hard to reach out to these kids.
 I agreed with the book “Lies My Teacher Told Me” the poor forgets the plight of their parents and the teachers treat the kids like how they are dressed and are even worried when the poor students do well!

I agree with Casey in that it is quite evident that the rights (and wages) given to workers during this time were next-to-nothing. The case I found most interesting; however, was the question of the Lochner vs. New York. It seems that the Supreme Court deemed that bakers, because of the relative physical ease of their job and their ability to work long hours, did not deserve the "protecting arm of the state." Now this seems quite unconstitutional, considering there are many potential hazards in the bakery. (Fires, as we saw in the Triangle Factory being the most important) I'm not calling for the unionization of bakers because of their borribly strenuous working conditions, but it seems unconstitutional to me to not give the same rights to a baker as a factory worker.

In reading all of these articles, it seems to me that to say that the factory owners (and others who had financial interest in the factories) just didn’t care about the workers, may be an understatement. The accounts of the conditions of the factories themselves, the military actions taken by local governments, and the court rulings in favor of industry seem to almost dehumanize the workers. They were treated like pack animals…worked to the bone with only a subsistence of food, rest, and wages provided for them. They were also exploited to the point of being denied a number of basic freedoms provided for by our constitution. To me, these articles make it clear that financial gain was paramount to those involved with industry, while the wellbeing of workers was, at most, barely considered.

What I find so astounding about the record keeping is simply that the records were kept in the first place. You have to remember that the US at this time was not as concerned as we are today with national security (except for the anti-immigration peoples). I still think it is amazing that such thorough records were kept, especially when you remember the amount of people entering the country in these years: millions upon millions of people from a multitude of countries. I am happy that these records were kept, it provides us with a great resource. I would, however, like some more information on the reports of people having their names changed to make them easier to pronounce to the cutoms officer.

I think that is a very interesting point William and I agree with you. I have not read that book, but in my experience its very easy for high school teachers to illustrate the history in a way that is more favorable towards the US. In my US history class, the textbook we used actually leaned more toward the liberal side, but we could definitely see a Republican-based opinion during lecture. Thats just an observation though.

In browsing through the Ellis Island website, I was fascinated by the records and the information kept on the immigrants. I am always interested to see the first hand accounts and evidence of a certain event because it somehow solidifies in my mind that it actually happened, its not just something that we read about in textbooks. We can read the accounts of immigrants struggling to gain entry into the US. I thought the reasons that some immigrants were detained was intersting. That section was particularly difficult to read but I could see that some were disciplinary actions like "Hauck Jacob" having no money and some were more personal issues like "Michael..." whose wife was in the hospital. I think its interesting to be able to recreate a historical situation like this and be able to learn so much from the documents and records kept during the time. It will be interesting 100 years from now for future generations to read over the records of our current issues.

Has anybody else stared The Gospel of Germs yet? I read some of it on my way down to Alabama this weekend, and although it seems pretty repetitve at times, it's been very interesting. This idea that response to disease has affected societal change in such a broad fashion is fascinating.

As for Lies My Teacher Told Me, every teacher I had was a liberal. Every teacher except the History teachers, they were die hard republicans. But even they didn't blame the poor for being poor as Lorin bluntly put it. My highschool teachers tried to encompass as much as possible in their lessons.

History books do indeed have a shiny coat of varnish that shows a nice cozy middle-class life, and many who go to Furman have had nothing but cushy and comfortable lives. I do not think it is all that rare to find someone who knows about the plight of the poor, it is just extremely rare to find someone who cares, and even rarer to find someone who can/is do/ing something about it. Even as I say this, I am extremely guilty of seeing the squalid surroundings of Greenville's lower-class areas, and letting my eyes see but my brain not register. It is very much evident that we as US citizens have forgotten the fact that all of us are American, a point Riis was trying to make. Of course he linked it strongly to Christian morality, but the point was still a good one.

Evidence of our disconnectivity and plush mentality is throughout the newspapers and new broadcasts. I have never really liked it when people brought up the current conditions in the US to make an argument, but I believe many of us are in agreement that this war has gone too long, deadlines to pull out simply skipped over in the night. Yet the US public stays generally quiet. It has been all but proven that this war was waged under false pretenses and yet we continue to act like nothing has gone wrong. Just like the history books telling us that America does not have poor people, we are lying to ourselves in lieu of a life filled with letting resturants do the cooking, televisions do the thinking, and government do the acting.

My AP US History teacher in high school taught us the exact type of history that the author of Lies My Teacher Told Me had warned about. I had read this book over the summer and found it to be very interesting. In talking with people about history I have come to find that they believe/were taught the very pro-American, Republican history. I think it is more prevalent than you think Lorin, I would wager that the vast majority of high schools (especially public) teach this type of history. Why? Read the final chapter of the book called Why Is History Taught This Way? It is very interesting.

I thought it was interesting reading the passenger manifests on the Ellis Island website. There were so many immigrants heading to the big cities, like NYC and Chicago. I think its amazing, because the US was and is different than any other country in the world, and everyone wanted to come here to make a better life for themselves. Of course, as shown by Jacob Riis, not everyone gets a better life in the US. Sometimes their life is much more difficult. America is known as the land of oportunity, but unfortunately there are still some people who find it very difficult to succeed. The immigrants were working hard. Many of them did make their way up in society. I am just talking about the human spirit and how people persevere. You do have to keep in mind that Jacob Riis did have an agenda. There are poor and people who have trouble suceeding, but there are also poeple who started with nothing and succeeded, like Oprah.

This then brings us to the Lies My Teacher Told Me book. I did not really agree with the author when they said that children are taught Republican history, where you blame the poor for being poor. I don't know abut you guys, but all my teachers were liberal and preached the exact opposite.

After class on Friday in which we watched a portion of the show "Roots" I was talking with my dad and told him what we had just watched and he said "Yea that was a popular show but the author of the book it was based upon turned out to have made the whole thing up.' This sparked my interest and so I decided to do a google search and the results pulled up various accounts showing that indeed the author, Alex Haley, had either stolen or made up most of the stories which were originally thought to be oral narratives passed down from his own family. Most of these articles present a pretty convincing argument. I did not know how familiar people in the class were with this side of the argument and also would like to hear what Professor Benson had to say about it. I think it at least takes a little credibility away from the way the slaves were depicted as well as the other citizens of the town. I am going to post a few sites below that I found after doing the google search.

http://www.martinlutherking.org/roots.html
http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/alex.htm
http://www.tommcmahon.net/2004/02/sorry_kids_but_.html

Edited by author 01-26-2007 02:58 PM
Now I am actually glad that I was late doing this assignment and am waiting until after class to write on the discussion board. I think that this would be a good place to continue the discussion from class. One point that I would like to bring up about the video clips is their point of view and how that relates to the time that they were written. In "Birth of a Nation", the story is "being told" from the white supremist's point of view. THis is very indicative of the time period when whites thought that the african americans had no point of view.
      In "Roots", the story was being portrayed from the african american point of view. At this point in histoy, african americans are getting their civil rights and a time of equality is begining tto come around. The movie is indicative of this new found african american point of view.

I like what you guys are thinking about the integration of Blacks and Whites in the Army at the time, but it would have been impossible and counter productive. Most northerners were still extremely prejudice and there would have bee little chance for cohesion in such units. The Army didn't officially desegregate until 1951 due more in part to necessity in the Korean War than becauce of a true change in attitudes. This met with severe opposition even then... imagine the result if it were attempted in 1864!

Also, you guys if you remember in “Copperheads” the general feeling of the soldiers did change once they witnessed the difference between black freemen versus the slaves. Several times in the book the author repeats that the soldiers felt they were fighting not just for the Union, but for the wholeness of the Union. By freeing the slaves this would prevent the same conflict in a later generation. Not only did they feel as if they were preventing their children from another war, they recognized if the Union was to be united again the economic foundation in the South could not be built on the efforts of slavery.

After checking out the photos in “Portrayal of American Indians” I felt as though the natives were exploited for Western expansion. After the Civil War many people were drawn to the west for the opportunities the land offered. As people migrated into native roaming ground, the Indians were forced into smaller reservations. The cultures of the Natives were commercialized in order to satisfy pioneers fears about the “Wild West”. Almost all of the pictures depicted the Indians as tame individuals that found simple pleasures in the bottle or just hanging out in their loin cloths. If they weren’t drinking they were performing some ritual. These portrayals of native life seemed like they had accepted the white culture as a part life. The idea of a Frontier had completely vanished for the sake land. Except for a few Apache rebels that had to be beaten down, the West was a process of the Reconstruction period.
The Dawes Act made it possible to divide land already given to the Natives and reduce the size of their original reservation by at least a third. After the 14th and 15th Amendment was approved why was the protection of rights for the ex-slaves equal with the natives during the reconstruction period? After the allotment of land the natives’ American citizenship was delayed for 25 years. So, were the Native Americans lower in society than the ex-slaves?

I think both you guys have valid points. But what David's post made me think about, drawing back to Copperheads, was the idea that many Union soldiers did not care for abolition. While David mentioned that having blacks fight alongside whites would improve the moral of the Union soldier, I think it would have the reverse effect. The book conveyed the idea that the North was still a very racist place and that abolition was a very radical idea at the time, as well as it was considered very radical to be an "abolitionist." I think by having blacks fight alongside whites in Union army would make the white divisions think that Lincoln really had his "secret agenda" of emancipation hiding behind his goal to preserve the Union.

David, I am in agreement with you when it comes to the former slaves participation in the Union’s army. I believe it was an important step towards self-emancipation through the fact that you are giving former slaves the opportunity to fight for the freedom of others. But, I do think that in some ways it was a ploy to justify the Lincoln’s goals to stop slavery. These former slaves turned soldiers were not primarily used until after the Emancipation Proclamation, with the most notably of these being the 54th Massachusetts Infantry. The 54th was formed in March of 1863, two months after the issuing of the proclamation. This supports the fact that these former slaves were merely being used for the most part as propaganda for the Lincoln administration’s new goal of ending slavery. I am not saying that these soldiers were not important in the war, their fighting at Battery Wagner near Charleston gives an example of how courageous these men really were, but I doubt that groups such as the 54th would have been fighting if there had been little hostility to Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation.

In discussing the idea of self-emancipation by the slaves, I was hoping the subject of the push for african-amercian troops by many prominent leaders would come up. Frederick Douglas was one of the greatest proponents of arming african-americans and serving in the army. Though this is definitly a polarizing moment, I am curious to know if this event in any way hastened the attitudes of slaves in the south to resist their bondage in a greater capacity. Furthermore what effect did having whites and blacks in the same army (though not in integrated units) have on the attitudes of soldiers towards the war? I would presume that it would become a stronger case of whites viewing the war for preservation oft the union and african-american troops viewing it as a chance to defeat slavery.

I'd like to get some other people's thoughts on the subject of self-emancipation as related to the entry of african-american troops into the war.

I agree with Reeser to an extent. There was something "off" in they way Lincoln handled alot of the issues presented in Copperheads but I do think that through out the entire time Lincoln did what he thought was best for the country. In suspending Habeas Corpus he took away rights off the people, but consider his positition. Half the country had just left the country. Lincoln' Goal was unity and he was willing to claim it no matter what the costs. Even If he had to force unity on the people hewanted to make sure at least his half of the country was unified. I think the same situation applied in the arest of Vallandingham. I think yesterday we proved that he was not guilty of treason yet he was arested and convicted by military tribunal. Vallandingham was a dissenter and that is all he never in any real treasonous acts but he threatened unity in the North. So Lincoln had him arested and deported. So through out this Lincoln may have done some questionable acts but i beleive he did all of it to perserve unity. So i guess i would argue that he was tru to his motives but his methods were questionable.

I can't really call either view of Lincoln's motives true in their totality. I think both sides leave out some information in order to make their points, but then again, that's the strategy of debate. I do agree with Casey that if the South did win (as it will in the future say my friends and family back home), the view of Lincoln would be quite different. But I think the view of what happened isn't nearly important as is the truth of what happened and why. Viewpoints can only take us so far in themselves.

Also, I think Casey helped my point our yesterday when he talked about the certain permanent level of awareness that the American people now have about their place and connectedness with the world. Whether or not it is a ferverous as before means little comapred to the fact that it does indeed exist. And personally, I think Lincoln was very much in the right by NOT pleasing everyone and by NOT beign satisfied with any type of previous "status quo". I liked the article because it referred to the freedom he had in power by having opposition to him. Dissent and argument, especially during a time as critical as the Civil War, are very powerful tools. Personal liberties do not bring as much freedom in themselves as the people as a whole can have through their government. After all, the people are the government and that is where their true freedom and power are concetrated; not within the individual.

In regards to Todd's question about families of soldiers, i would just like to say that i never paid much attention to what was going on overseas or foreign affairs until my cousin joined the marines a little over a year ago. This, encompassed witht he "wake up call" of 9/11, has made me more aware of the world around me, but i think it is evident that it has already died down a great deal, but i think as long as there is the conflict going on overseas there will always be a certain level of awareness among the american people.

Concerning the article from last nights reading and yesterday's class, i really find it interesting how there can be such completely opposite views of Lincoln. Arguements for both sides are strong, but in thinking about how it was the north and not the south that won, perhaps the world's view of lincoln would be drastically different, and the question of his actions would not exist. Ok, i've run out of time and must go, see you all in a little more than an hour.

After all the discussions and all the readings and all the trials...it seems to me like the Union wants it their way, the Confederates want it a different way, and nothing could be done by anybody in order to fully appease both sides. And so we put Lincoln in the middle of all this and expect him to lead us to salvation. He's just a man, and a good man at that. He had a sound mind and was able to hold this country together. If you look deeper into history there are nations that have split over much less dissention than America faced in the 1860's. More and more I have realized that the war could have changed so much of the America that we live in today, but I believe that Lincoln did it the right way, as best he could. Just like in the trials yesterday, some viewpoints are that he did too much, others think he didn't do enough, but you can't please everybody. This morning on sportscenter Rex Grossman (Chicago Bears QB) said that no matter what he does, there will always be critics out there who don't quite like it. His task is to silence the critics and do his job. Lincoln also did his job.

Regarding Joel's Lost Cause question, I have thought about this also because it seems as if there is a huge underlying irony to this whole thing...and to WAR in general. War is meant to bring peace. But its WAR! Definition: "a conflict and armed hostility". The Civil War was originally fought to preserve liberties, but during the course of the war, many of the civil liberties and freedoms had to be sacrificed in order to achieve the ultimate goal. Alot of these liberties were taken away by Lincoln (as we learned in the trial yesterday) because he identified that desperate times call for desperate measures. I just think its funny that personal liberties are sacrificed during times of war, and are hopefully suspended just for a short time, until a true and preserved liberty can be won for all the people of a nation.

I think that the hypocrisy of the South in the lead up to the Civil War is worth noting. The secession documents that we read all discussed the idea that the federal government was overstepping its limits and infringing on the states' rights. However, their desire for the states to hold and exercise power was completely limited to their brethren in the South. When a federal action could assist them, then they were all for it. Thus, I'm sure that no southern states objecting to federal martials deputizing northern state officials into federal jurisdiction for the purpose of slave return. Yet, when northern states asserted some control and nullified the Fugitive Slave Act, they suddenly had too much power and were breaking the covenant of the Union? It seems to be contradictory that they claim as grievances both that states' rights are not to be infringed upon and also that for states to exercise some rights and autonomy is to break the bond of the Union. I also wonder how the "Lost Cause" school would have reconciled this conflict.

I agree with you Todd that human emotions run in cycles and about the snooze button. I do think the people will go back into their selve evolved equilibrium, but I believe the government will never cycle back down. September 11 was a horrible event which affected the whole country. The media made sure this event was sent across the country. The media determines if an event will even have a resonating effect on society. As was mentioned in class, the 1998 Twin Towers basement bombing, was given very little attention. The bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000 was not considered a major event. Although both these events had less casualities than 9/11, they were still terrorist attacks. There have always been signs that we have enemies, but people choose to ignore them as long as possible until it slaps them in the face. President Clinton, while I think he was a good President concerning other things, did nothing in retaliation for the attacks which occured during his adminstration. He chose to let them pass, it is easier to let it pass. Unfortunately, many Americans tend to feel the same way. We live in the most powerful country in the world in this idealistic existence. People choose to ignore things which disrupt their lifes and goals. Then when people do open their eyes, they go into security mode. You get into the problem of racial profiling. Of course, this brings us into the cycles of security vs. civil rights. This current enemy is very different from our past enemies. Conventional fighting methods don't have the same effect on these people. They are not likely to die out any time soon so if our government and society cycle back down to normal security measures and go back to life before 9/11, then they will attack again. I do not think there is any turning back from September 11.

Edited by author 01-24-2007 04:24 PM
I think that the human emotion runs on cycles. Up's and down's pattern how we think, feel, and act. Before 9/11, I would not get sweaty palms seeing an Arab man going through security (partly because I was not well informed enough to pay attention to any threats around me that would have given me a judgment regarding the middle east). Directly after 9/11, everybody was judging Arabs as they walk through security lines. But that eventually dies down as well and society sets back into a self involved equilibrium. The self involved part comes from people's main priority of only caring about those things that directly affect them.
Saxton and William, doesn't it seem as if the families of soldiers pay alot more attention to the war overseas than someone else who frankly sees no reason to care?

Brandon, the "wake up call" comes in many forms and events. But just like in real life, people will either choose to get out of bed and start their day, or hit the snooze button a few more times. 9/11, Iraq, political scandal, etc has sounded the alarm, but most Americans are satisfied in waking up just enough so that they can hit the snooze button. Sad but true?

     After reading this article, I find it interesting that Krug seems to be in conflict with Jennifer Weber, the author of Copperheads. In Copperheads, the Emancipation Proclamation is viewed with contempt by almost every party mentioned. It’s portrayed as an illegal act that Lincoln had been secretly planning for some time before he actually released tit to the public. “The History Teacher” defends the point of view that Lincoln was a humanitarian and did not pass the Emancipation Proclamation solely to please the radicals that were breathing down his neck. While Copperheads leads the reader to believe that Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation not because he had any real interest in the wellbeing of blacks, but because it was a necessity to reunite the Union, Krug’s article labels Lincoln as “the Great Emancipator,” and claims that he took this action because he had a true concern for the black slaves.

    After class today, I started thinking about the whole develpoment of the state in general. In the sense of dissent against liberty, there's a struggle between the ststus quo and the idea, the antithesis that few people have that transcend the state as-is and see a better possible state. The beginnings of such a movement, based in reaosn can help demonstrate the elimination of slavery. Some conflicts arise over time from individuals who see above the state as is and in effect, dissent in order to improve it. These heroes are often hated in their particular time, but their ideas usually come to fluition if indeed they help the development of state. In the Civil War, Lincoln began trying to restore the status quo, but he at the same time transcended in his thinking the ways of the state and saw the abolition of slavery as an inprovemtn through that state. In a sense, he dissented himself.
    I think that currently, the integration of politics into "pop culture" isn't an integration at all. After 9/11, people became active in a higher consciousness of world ideas and events. Politics and government are their direct input and connection to the main theatre of world events. In reaction to seeing their global connections, they became more active in those institutions that give them representation and influence on a global scale. Instead of integration, I's hypothesize that they we are becoming active in a global connectedness that has exisited all along; we just needed the wake up call.

I agree that Belle had some very typically southern things to say, like how she was happy to see nice yankees as they so rarely see them. It was also very interesting how she would talk about what she did in the morning, then interject something about army movements, then keep talking about the rest of her day. I don't know, to me it seemed as if she wasn't really that phased by the war. It was simply something else to note in her diary. I can't recall where she actually had any serious thoughts about the war, save asking God to bless the troops. I also found it interesting how she marked the 4th of July, saying that it was the "anniversary of our forefather's independence" and then quickly saying that it was also a sad day for the confederacy since a year earlier Vicksburg had been lost. All in all a very interesting diary to read.

[b]Red Group Posting[/b]

I reall enjoyed reading those readings from diary of Bell Edmondson. They provided great incite into civilian life in the South during the final days of the Civil War. You could see the excitement she felt as news of a Confederate advance reached her, or the dissapointment felt in a loss. Why is it that the majority of Americans don't feel that way about our soldiers today? I know a lot of people who hear of a victory abroad just sort of shrug it off, and it's kind of disheartening.

I liked what Lorin, Blaine, and several other people said with regards to the amount of information to which highschool students are exposed. Even in the South, I never heard about all the political tensions of the Civil War era that we've discussed or even mentioned in passing.

Red Group Posting:

In reading the personal accounts of Belle Edmondson, I noticed a few stereotypically southern opinions, the importance of faith and prayer in this woman's daily life, and the ebb and flow of rumors about the war and their troops and the effect they can cause. The first image that caught my eye was how her house was responsible for feeding the Yankees that came by. Ms. Edmondson had a good attitude about the situation and appreciated that there were only a few to feed rather than the whole group of them. Another interesting point is that despite the war going on around them and obviously affecting them, Ms. Edmondson is still able to gather with friends occassionaly to enjoy playing cards and spending time with friends. I also noticed a significant shift in attitude and outlook by the end of September entries. Obvisously, spirits were down and everyone was tired of the war.

I found the example of how much Ms. Edmondson was affected by the war similar to what we talked about in class a few days ago about how much regular citizens are affected by a war. I am embarassed to admit that the war in Iraq does not affect my life in an immediate way. I was surprised to see how informed Ms. Edmondson was about the war, but there were also many times that she documented the telegraph wasn't working or she didn't have any new information. This first hand account was very informative and a good way to relate to the experiences of southerners during the Civil War.

Edited by author 01-24-2007 02:19 AM
Red Group Posting:

I had a question in class today and unfortunately let the moment in which it was appropriate to ask said question slid by, but I would like to attempt to answer it now. The question is: If the mention of a slave insurrection was so terrifying, did the slave masters ever stop to think that it would be more economical and safer to simply begin the steps to freedom, or set up incentive programs that would lead to slave's freedom? If the thought that a slave uprising was so real and present that they went to these extraordinary measures, then why did they not address the issue and instead kept the status quo with the apparent threat of death looming overhead?

With everyone hating the blacks so much, or at least loving their white situation so much, North and South, freedom did not seem an option. It seems that U.B. Phillips' idea that black people were not up to being full citizens was prevalent throughout the US. The Wilmont Proviso attempted at coralling the slaves in their own area, to separate them from society. This side-stepped the issue of any kind of freedom possibility. No one thought to make the slaves happy to relieve tensions, it was only through suppression that goals were set.

Even Prigg v. PA side-steps the issue, saying that what the South does is fine, they just do not want any part of it. It takes the 1850 Compromise to get anyone to own up to what the situation was at the time, complete with heel-dragging. With these two examples in mind, though they do not deal with the slave-owners directly, it seems that the issue was not slavery being questioned whatsoever but the fact was that it was what had been done before and they sought resolutions through what they knew. What they knew was slavery. Of course what the slave-owners did was terrible, but it was what they had been grown up to know and had always known. It was not even a thought in their mind that the institution of slavery could be removed. This does not make what they did any more right, but it does hint at the fact that, like a dog that learns helplessness, the slave owners were the somewhat victim to their surroundings and times.

I completely agree with the Richard P. McCormick; political parties when it really comes down to it, only care about being re-elected. This can be backed by a plethera of evidence. Take Copperheads for example. The Peace Democrats, as Blaine stated, waited until they sensed a weakness in the Republicans to attack politically. Obviously it their true ambition was to control the US government, they only used anti-war sentiments as a political platform.

To use a more up to date example lets look at the 2004 election. On the days following September 11 every Democrat in Congress was ready to go to war, in fact Republican and Democrats alike sang "God Bless America" on the steps. Slowly though as the war extended and morale lessened some Democrats began do dissent. When we invaded Iraq not every Democrat was opposed to the idea although it was no popular. However as the presidential election neared its almost as if the Democrats sensed a chance to seize power and almost completely, as a whole, denounced war. These two examples are only two of many in which a political party tries to manipulate the situation in order to take control. Truth be told if John Kerry had won the election and ended the war and another terrorist attack had occured on US soil, we would have been back at war with avengence and the Republicans probably would have eventually gone anti-war.

Lorin, I couldn't help but think the same thing today during class, how politicians, especially today, play off of the fears of the people to get re-elected. People got scared after September 11th, just like they did with "Bloody Kansas" and the politicians played off of those fears to enact laws that could not have normally been passed.

Edited by author 01-23-2007 04:39 PM
I agree with Lorin in that the severe division of the North and the near secession of the West is something that seems to be left out of our high school Civil War textbooks. I had no idea about the depth of the dissent, hatred and violence in the North that severly hurt the morale of the soldiers.

Another thing that caught my attention about the Copperheads is that they "remained quiet only until they detected weakness in the army and the government" (86). In this sense, they seemed to be nothing more than rabble-rousers who would pick and choose their fights. This inconsistency seems to me as harmful to their cause.

While reading the Copperhead book, I found it very interesting that there was so much political conflict and dissent in the North during the Civil War. I had no idea that the North was so divided. It seems that since the Confederate states chose individually to secede, there would not be much division concerning their goals and the war. I do know of a county in Alabama called Winston County, which disagreed with the South. They made their own Declaration of Independence and seceded from the Confederacy, becoming their own country. The entire county supported the Union and did not want to fight for the Confederacy. The Confederacy sent troops into the county and killed every young man who refused to serve. This county still hates the South for what happened. I thought that was interesting.

I also found it interesting that there are many similarities between Lincoln with the Civil War and Bush with the Iraq War. Both Lincoln and Bush pushed the envelope concerning government power and constitutional rights of the poeple. Both extended government power in a time of war, and both proposed limitations to civil liberties to enhance security and protect the nation. Lincoln suspended the writ of habeus corpus and Bush, with the Patriot Act, can hold terror suspects in jail without a trial and has implemented special NSA wiretaps. Lincoln declared marshall law in some areas of the North, and Bush has created special military tribunals for terror suspects instead of the standard jury trial.

Links to presentations:

http://history.furman.edu/~benson/hst41/show/pivot50.htm (esp. "governors" and Election maps of 1848-1860)

http://history.furman.edu/benson/civwar/show/cw4.htm (esp. "Ms1", "Alabama", SC. v States I and II, "Merriwether", "Departures," Bonnie Blue, and Heaven.)

It is very apparent that the civil war was one of the bloodiest battles every to be fought. In “The First Modern War and Last Ancient War” it talks about how in many Civil War Battles there were over 30% casualties for both sides. Steven Dutch’s website portrays the idea that having over 30% casualties usually would cause an army to collapse. However, each side would simply pick up their things and move along after horrific casualties of 30% or more.

It seems to me that if more states and people to the west of the Mississippi would have been involved in the war, the outcome might have been completely different. In the essay online (mentioned above) it talks the land beyond the Mississippi. Neither side had the capabilities (logistically) to “outflank” the other. It talks about when the confederacy surrendered they still had a fully intact army camped out in Texas. Bruce Catton said that “it might as well been in Siberia”. Florida was scarcely inhabited and proved to be a very poor staging point for the war.

With lack of troops and support it talks about how the Southern soldiers attacked in most battles instead of defending. The confederate’s lack of conservative tactics leads to their demise. If communication were better back in those days maybe General Robert E. Lee could have warned people sooner about his plan of destroying the North’s financial power. This along with little Western involvement could have lead to a different ending to this important historical battle.

Will- I'm also intrigued about a case study of North Carolina as related to secession. As a native of the state I've always been intrigued with how pockets of the state had little involement with the war as they were pro-union(the app. mountains for instance). I'd be curious to see if this is true of other southern states as well; almost the opposite of copperheads though amongst the common citizen.

    Well Robert, you've got a point, but i think the issue of their defense is somewhat justifiable, from both the viewpoint of the Southerners and from our Founding Fathers. I've heard in several classes that "we the people," at least in the 19th century, referred to white, male, landowners. Such an interpretation fares well concerning the lack of freedom given on a national, federal level to blacks and to white women. I find myself hating to justify any kind of defense of a topic such as slavery, but in context, it worked for the Southerners. Congress ignored slavery in the Decleration of Independence except when it benefitted their cause. It wasn't something they wanted to deal with. Further proof exists with the Missouri Compromise. Everyone was quite content ignoring the problem for as long as possible, dealing with it only when it reared its head. So in a time when the issue is raising its head permanently, I can see why Southerners fell back on that definition of white, male, landowner to justify their cause.
    Personally, I don't agree with their statements. But as we all know, people pick and choose what information to include and what to interpret to benefit their beliefs and their morals. All of the Secession Declarations took statements from the documents they thought would most benefit their cause. The same was true in 1776, 1860, and today. But I think that's where people who can look at things in context bring their greatest influence in the world; finding the complete truth from partial truth that exists in specific viewpoints.

While reading the South Carolina Secession Declaration I found the choice of wording and quotation very interesting. In paragraphs we were assigned to read it talks a lot about the injustice done to the southern states in many different places, which is to be expected from a state seceding from tyhe union, but it uses quotations from the constitution multiple times to directly attack the problems of the north through the document that was the law of the land. I thought it was ironic that a document that was intended to maintain the liberty of all people was used to defend the inprisoning of certain groups. This concept of who the constitution was implying in the phrase "to secure the blessings of lberty to ourselves and our prosperity" is the basis for some of south carolinas defense of its actions. Kinda crazy, but maybe its just my northern bias.

I have to disagree with you Katherine. I don't think that the editorial is calling the southerners idiots. The author is making a very strong (and well written) point about how if the United States acknowledged the right of secession, then any state could secede and could mess with the commerical interests of the "Union". The author is trying to rally the north against the idea of secession, not simply by the southern states, but by any state in particular. He is not refering to the south in particluar, but instead is trying to appeal to the people's idea for a greater Union. The only way to preserve that union is to not allow state secession. It is for the common good, and the only way to uphold this idea for the common good of the Union is to completly destroy the idea of secession right here and now. If the Union were to throughly beat the seceding states then no other state would ever again think of secession.
That is what I thought the author was trying to say. I didn't pick up on the idea that he was calling the south idiots, he was just very pro-union.

One other thing I noticed: in the document about secession dates, etc. the states with higher slave percentages (not necessarily raw slave numbes) seceded before those with lower percentages of slave. It is also intersting about North Carolina. NC barely past the resolution for secession (by about 650 votes). That would have made the Civil War very different, and non-confederate state, along the coast, in the heart of the confederacy. What is strange is that they had the lowest percentage of free persons in the Middle-South, yet were the closest to not breaking with the Union. I think that North Carolina would be an interesting case study during this time.

One thing that struck me while reading the material was how nit-picky the southern states were being in their secession papers. There were some that had 4 clauses that said the exact same thing. I understand that they were being careful and specific, i think it was a bit excessive. Also when reading the editorial from the Daily Union and Advertiser, it appears as though they thought the southerners were a bunch of total idiots. It was writtenin such a tone that it seemed no northerner could believe what the south was trying to do. It also appeared as though they felt the only way to make the south understand ridiculiousness of what they were doing was to completely destroy them.

As I was reading the Secession dates I was intrigued by the amount of slaves owned in the Lower South versus Mid South. To an extent these figures also relates to Blaine’s topic as well as Miller’s topic.
 In 1860 the slave population was 490,865 in Virginia, however only 26% of white families owned them. Georgia is next with a total of 462,232 slaves. Over half of the white families within the state owned slaves. These numbers are consistent in Lower South. I’m guessing this has to do with larger plantations in Virginia, Georgia, and Mississippi.
 Although, South Carolina was the first to secede from the Union, their reasons for secession was poorly argued in their Declaration. I have to say, Mississippi was the clearest and most honest.
“It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.”
“It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.”

As the South saw it, this was the last alternative. Without an attempt of reorganization of this major revenue, how were these state suppose to economically compete with the North? As far as that goes they would never be represented as strongly in the next elections without the financial backings of wealthy merchants and plantation owners.
Geographically, most of the people who voted Democratic were from farming communities and grew up in a conservative community. “After the Fact,” states usually 6-10%, of lower Northern states had migrated from the South to escape the tension of slavery.
After the draft was set into operation, many Northerners thought the war should be fought by the abolitionists. This reminds one of Vietnam and the hippie statements sounding a lot like the statements of the Northerners, “It’s an old man’s war and a young man’s fight.” This makes sense. What a muddled mess! After the Civil War was over it had done nothing to alleviate the issues of slavery, only give it a new name. Sharecropping!!
I don’t know if all this is clearly connected to Blaine and Miller‘s topics, but it sounds connect in my head.

I hate to break subject (sorry david and todd) but something interesting happened to me a few minutes ago that regards the perceptions (and stereotypes) of the South. Well I was on my Clemson Football message board and a quite arrogant Ohio State fan got on and tried to start stuff. The importance of this is the perceptions he brought to the table when he made assumptions like calling Clemson fans "toothless, tattoo covered, dale JR worshipping, shoeless, and trailor sharing." The reason I find this statement so relevant to our class is the fact that this boils down to a lot of what is happening in the midwest in the book "Copperheads." Weber writes about how midwestern states (like Ohio) were divided over the merits of secession and how it was often neighbor versus neigbor, thus leading me to guess that a lot of slander was happening during this period. I am just guessing that one of the favorite images of Copperheads and painted by the Republican party would be one of stupidity and bankwoodsness (is that a word?) Well I guess I am trying to give an example of how tensions still exist from this time in history, oh and don’t worry I tore this guy a new one.

Todd's recent post made me think of the reason as to why politicians that are "party extremists" hold office for so long. Because of their staunch support of some issues that the other party is against, their supporters are guaranteed by these extremists of how they will vote on the issue.

On the issue of Southern Secession, I was particulary fascinated by South Carolina's reference to the Declaration of Independence. The clause of "Free and Independent States" is in my mind almost a non-issue. The modern United States had yet to be created! The Constitution was still years away from being drafted and ratified; the fact that South Carolina took such a narrow scope on pusing secession astounds me.

Furthermore the reasoning of Mississippi's Secession Declaration about slavery---"These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery, is a blow at commerce and civilization." further empthasized the the belief of paternailism carried over from our last unit.

It may be true that "party extremists" are the ones that hold office more times than the moderates of each party, but I don't think that is any reason to get disgusted. If everyone in America relies solely on their political party leader to do everything for them then nothing would get done. Like the saying goes, "If pro is the opposite of con, then what is the opposite of Progress?" Of course this answer is Congress. Yes, one needs to eventually pick sides and vote for a candidate to lead their party, but that is not where it ends. What is nice to see is when the moderates (the majority of people in a party, because not everyone can be President, or Mayor, or Representative) do things individually or in small groups, that are for the general good of their society. This world will be even more lost if people think that things can only get done in big groups. Positive change can be started by just one person, one moderate...it doesn't have to be extremists that run this country. And these things can be done totally free from party affiliation. I'm talking donations, fundraising for worthy causes, good deeds, and even letting someone into traffic. Not even the President can do that because he's not allowed to drive! Did we not learn anything from Red Jacket as he was able to slow down/change the white progression all by himself?

BLUE group posting
In reading the "Madness of John Brown" I couldn't help but think that the whole idea of John Brown being "insane," or "mad" was shaped and exaggerated by writers and editors such as Horace Greenly. The first problem I have with the evidence of his madness was the primitive knowledge of psychology and "psychoanalysis" of the time. Not only that, but there was a wide, often controversial definition of what "insanity" really was. Secondly, writers (as well as the author) continually cite Freud as evidence for Brown's madness, while (if I remember correctly from Psych. 21) Freud's theories and methods such as psychoanalysis were irregular and far from what was accepted mainstream psychology (Watson, Wundt)during his era. While Brown did have a strange childhood that seemed to affect him throughout his life, I find it hard to accept that these circumstances made him, by definition, "insane." However, I am sure there is plenty to be said about the other side of the case. Let me know what you guys think.

I am no expert on politics by any means, but I found the debate between Todd and Andrew to be pretty interesting. I can identify with both of your arguments, but I feel that in today's America with a controversial issue at hand such as the war in Iraq, more people are thinking carefully about which party they identify with, and how that party can help them accomplish their goals. Whether it is for better or for worse, party affiliation today seems to mean a lot more than it did in prior years.

What I noticed today in class was that even though the different historians disagreed about the severity of slavery, they ALL held that slavery was far worse than we (at least I) was taught in school. Did anyone else notice this? I think it makes sense in the same way we repress the Native American removals (think Red Jacket). If we were to really learn the full severity (if that can be really gauged) of slavery, would we feel differently about it? Also about the Stockholm Syndrome. I think this is a very valid point and doesn't necessarily have to be the minority of slave holders. As long as the slave knows about some of the basic facets that all humans believe in (religion, love, etc) he will know that he is not getting them. If something that you thought you should be able to do (either out of thought or prior experience) and now someone is telling you when you can and can't do it, you would feel like that person is controlling your life. This is the whole point behind the Stockholm Syndrome, the master shows his power by giving the slave a few basic things. I think that this is a very valid point, and probably practiced at this time (even though the name was coined yet).

I dissagree with your idea of the roles of the party system today, Todd. I think that politics today is more about power than anything else, and it absolutely disgusts me. Both political parties are run by the extremists who care more about passing a stereotyped party agenda than the wishes of their own constituents. Thankfully, there are moderates who can combine the good points of both parties into a practical and somewhat more moral political agenda that often meets the needs of many of their constituents. While both the dominant and nondominant parties have a voice in politics, it's not always the voice of their constituents or even of all party members. It's the voice of the people on the far right or the far left.

What is your main reason for joining a particular party? In class today we discussed how Richard McCormick says that the main role of the party system is to be elected and to win the Presidency. I don't know if I agree with that now-a-days. People join a particular party in order to relate to others who have the same morals, views, and goals that they would like to see shape our country and our world. Now I guess the best way to have the biggest influence is to actually win an election, but even in these "off years" for democrats since Bush and the Republicans have controlled the Presidency, Democrats still have a voice, an influence, and a presence on the political platform. Basically, even if a party doesn't have strong occupation in political leadership positions, they can still let their voice be heard and stand up for what they believe in.
Also, only a select few at the top of each party actually make it into an office, the rest of the members are there for support and funding, and add nicely to the party's strength in numbers.

Today's presentations can be found at:

http://history.furman.edu/~benson/hst41/show/agejackson.htm

and

http://history.furman.edu/~benson/hst41/show/41frame2.htm

Today in class we discussed the severity of slavery and the debate that goes along with it. The historians we discussed seemed to have very different opinions and it was very interesting to see how these opinions evolved into more sophisticated arguments over the years. It is also noteworthy that the historian Walter Edgar (a professor at USC and writer of a History of SC textbook used in my other class this semester) points out the difference of slavery within the different colonies. Whether true or not he seems to feel that slavery in SC was less harsh in theory than some other colonies such as Barbados and Virginia. In order for these colonies to turn a profit they in effect had to work their slaves to death. Edgar theorizes that slavery in SC was more "benign" than other colonies because of the nature of work being done. Manpower was more important than hard labor. SC rice and indigo planters could not afford to kill their slaves. They were more valuable alive than dead. Obviously his theory has come under much criticism from other historians but I thought it was worth noting nonetheless.

I hate to break off topic but I did find that yesterday’s lecture was very interesting in connecting the economic changes in America to the Second Great Awakening. I never realized that something such as the growing commercial sector of business in the northeast would cause a sweeping movement that would lead to great religious fervor throughout the country. To me these two things appear to be unrelated but once one looks at books such as Market Revolution by Charles Sellers it is easy to trace back the steps to find the cause-and-effect relationship of the two.

It is also interesting to see the difference in ministries of the 1st and 2nd Great Awakenings. Instead of the harsh messages of ministers such as Jonathan Edwards, we have people such as Finney who are concentrating their religious efforts in friendship with the common folk (esp. women). One can see how this shapes modern religion in the United States as the pastor is now much less judgmental and more of a caring friend who is preaching a lesson rather than a damnation.

Mr. Womble’s account of slavery is everything I assumed, but was never told. The broom wedding was interesting. I was wondering where this ritual came from. I read “Roots” when I was fifteen and came across this also. So, I looked it up. It originated in Ghana, Africa. It symbolizes the idea “out with the old and in with the new.” It also places emphasis on superstitious beliefs. The married couple could have the broom ritual done several ways: 1. to sweep the air over the couples’ heads to frighten bad spirits away, 2. the promises made by the woman to take care of the home, children and ect. 3. it also was a test to determine who would be head of the household. Whoever jumped the highest over the broom would be the “big cheese,” of course this was usually the guy. The broom practice eventually died out in Africa, but the ritual remained in America.
The impression that slave owners used this as a way to instill the concept of inferiority is very clear. Also, maybe this was considered a practice to gain the gratitude of the slaves for attempting to use old traditional rituals? If those who were enslaved during those times had accurate recordings of this practice, I’m sure we would find expressions of disgust and ridicule. This custom was redundant after the first or second generation of slaves. Why, did slave owners, who were predominately Christian use, what they considered a “heathen ritual,” if Christian values were enforced on plantations. How confusing it must have been! One moment the plantation owner is exercising traditional African ways, then the next, he is beating the crap out of you for performing the African ritual of child naming.

Casey... we need to discuss that more, If for no other reason than that "The Killer Angels," is an amazing book... Watch the movie "Gettysburg," it is based on the book and that speech by Col. Chamberlain comes across pretty powerfully!

I've been thinking about Sellers' "Market Revolution." All great societies at some point seem to have a moral breakdown... Rome is a pretty good example of that. It also seems tha the future of the society to a certain extent is dependant on how the society combats this. It is a fact that during this time the american economy exploded, but how disruptive was it really to the household, and how widespread was the disruption? If it's true that the 2nd Great Awakening comes from women wanting to regain control of their men, then the United States would seem to have the most moral (or controlling) women in history.
On the transportation topic... I agree without a doubt that transportation improvements gave the greatest contribution to the new flourshing economy. Look at Europe during this same period of industrialization: It took place on a much faster and wider scale in England than on the continent. Why? Because England had the most developed canal/ railroad/ etc., system. Above and beyond the aspect of improved transportation assisting Sam'l in the recipt and movement of his goods, the fact that factories and such had such a wider access to raw materials the the production of everything increased exponentially... and I suppose it is safe to say it is much of this that led to the need for the 2nd Great Awakening.

While reading "the view from the bottom rail," a particular passage stood out to me, on p. 183, where it says "many yankees stongly believed that they were fighting a war to save the union." This passage stood out to me mainly because of another book i just recently read, the killer angels. Towards the beginning of the novel, col. chamberlain gives a speech to a group of men not wanting to fight anymore, and in the speech he says that they (the union army) are an army going out to set other men free. This book is fiction, but it brought to mind how when many people think of the civil war, they think of slavery. I might post more on this later, but i'm hungry now, so i'm going to go eat.

After reading "The veiw from the Bottom Rail" I thought that it was very interesting that many of the stories we hear about slavery usually do not come directly from the individuals who were enslaved, but through their masters and other observers. Davidson and Lytle talk about how their is a "top-rail" bias (speaking of the middle to upper classes) to most traditional histories. Usually those who had an education and were apart of this "top-rail" society would be more prone to publishing memoirs, diaries, and to write letters (180). I have never thought about the history of slavery to be brought to us by a biased perspective, and not from what Davidson and Lytle call from the "bottom-rail". Since slaves in those days didn't really document their lives, it is hard for historians to hold a great understanding of their lives.

I agree Joel. Transportation is probably the biggest driving force at this time, if not throughout all of US History. Just look at our conquest of the west. The railroads are what made that possible. They pretty much single handedly transformed the west into what it is, since before the railroads you had to either take a horse or steamship. Transportation is also hugely important in the market place. The US was/is able to trade with anyone in the world. At the time (mid 1800s) we began to build up our navy and resemble the Britain of old. This is when we began to start looking like a super power.

It looks like I fell into the same group reorganization confusion as a couple other people:

I think that with the Baltimore merchant (AKA Sam'L Jackson) exercise, we cannot stress enough how transportation improvements by 1850 really act as the key foundation for everything else. The development of railroads throughout the country, even with some lack of standardization in the South, had greatly increased the speed and efficiency with which goods and people could be transported within the country. Even without consistent use of the steam engine, sailing vessels and understanding of the waters had continued to improve. It was this extended market reach, because of better transport,that really allowed the mass production of factory goods to flourish. Without such efficient and comparatively easy shipping methods, areas nearby the factories would simply become oversupplied while areas farther away would still suffer shortages. The factories could not have flourished without the transportation systems. In addition, ease of movement allowed people in different areas to experience increased contact. Thus improved communication and understanding among a broader array of people and therefore promoted even more trade which allowed for more factory production, etc. In effect, this perpetuated the developing cycle. At the heart of this entire expansion, and what made it all possible to begin with, was the improvements in transportation that had occurred by this time.

Hi All:

The Law and Economic Transformation presentation can be found at
http://history.furman.edu/benson/hst21/show/antebellumlaw.htm

Dont worry Brandon that was just changed today. Originally I-R was due tomorrow.
I will take Brandon's religous-economic connection and run with it. I have to say I really do agree with Charles Sellers view on their connection. I think there is a connection with the religous and economic transformation that occured. The Half-Way covenant shows a direct relationship between religous and economic ties. The community suffered a decline in religion due in part to the loss of morals of people in that community. Which I believe was because American traders were forced to smuggle, buy, and sell goods on the black market in order to avoid the new taxes from the British. The church was upset at losing its congregation so it offered them a way to buy into the church through the half-way covenant. Out of their desire for more money they were willing to abandon their morals which lead to a decline in religion and eventually lead to a revival through the half-way covenant. This to me is a similar situation to the one Sellers describes.

Edited by author 01-17-2007 08:04 PM
Wow, apparently I totally forgot about how our groups were going to be re-assigned. I apologize.

    I agree with Casey about the maps, but putting that information together with trends in economic and religious changes can be just as telling. Throughout all of the maps, with late changes along the Erie Canal, the Whigs seem to find refuge in places that aren't necessarily close to routes that information might take across the country. I can see in my own home state of Tennessee that almost every blue county has a large body of water in it or running through it. When one gets in the mountains, the Whigs have a majority of the support; not only in Tennessee, but the mountains of West Virginia and North Caolina. Republicans gain control of areas close to routes of information and routes of trade, both near and far.
    One particular point of interest, as Dr. Benson was talking about today, the religious transformations that took place along the Erie Canal demonstrate a return to a more "moral," conservative doctrine (Whig-supporting), even if the approach is far from it. However, the resurgence in Whig-supporting counties across the nation dies down. I think, especially in New York, that the "disruption" that caused such change became the norm. Thus, an almost entire Whig New York State in 1848 regains its Republican influence.

Todd-too true. Growing up I remember having that one nice room for formal events (Christmas and Easter) and was always told to not go in the room.

In other interests...The Womble narrative was an excellent piece that I thought pulled out some rarely taught pieces of history.
    -The manner in which owners would "breed" slaves and treat them like livestock to create a better worker; this mirrored the story about how children ate from a trough filled with what amounted to slop. There seemed to be a common theme of animal-like treatment.
    -The religious aspect of the narrative interested me as well. I'd be interested to know other people's reactions about the pastor talking to the slaves about how to behave, etc. The second surprise from the passage was that slaves went into the church as well.
          -The broom ceremony; fun to read about, wish more elaboration had been made on the subject. I wondered if it was a tradition plantation owners came up with to ridicule the slaves or if it had originated in Africa?

  I guess the holiday weekend thing screwed me up and I thought today was Tuesday. Better late than never, right?! Anyways...
  With reference to the maps we looked at last night, a few tings stand out to me…In the beginning of the sequence things seem fairly even. Over time however, it looks like the Democratic party starts to overrun the Whigs. Starting on the peripheries of the developed land, the Democratic Party seems to surround the Whigs and drive them more toward the center of the developed portion of the map. To me, this would indicate that the Whigs were losing influence in important economic arenas such as the ports along the eastern seaboard and in California, and the frontier to the west. Also, the Whigs are being progressively forced out of important transportation-oriented areas such as the Mississippi river and the Erie Canal.

"Keeping up with the Jones's" unfortunately is a great boost for our economy. People feel like they have to out do everyone else in order to gain greater status (ie. the MTV show 'My Supersweet Sixteen'). This provides greater demand for those 'luxury items'. How many people have thought about their "dream house" and wanted cathedral cellings? That isn't necessary but it's "classier". Any other rooms or things to do you know of or have that you think isn't a necessity but looks good?

Todd, we had a "family room" in my house that we never really used (save for Christmas and other big events). I have always thought that it was a waste of a room and didnt really like it. I wish we could have used it better. I don't think that we had this extra room "to keep up with the Jones'" per se as we didn't even show it off to anyone! But I understand what you mean.

How many of you have a room (or two) in your house that you never go in? The lights are always off, the carpet is perfectly white, and your mom got mad at you when you were younger if you went in there. I also bet that the couches are so uncomfortable that you wouldn't ever want to bring company in there in the first place! For those who have grown up with these "parlors"...what do you think? Why not get utility from every available living space in the house?

While reading "Material Witness" I saw an interesting passage that the author noted as evidence for the improvement of dining habits among rather wealthy Americans.

"In his autobiography, Benjamin Franklin recalled that his wife presented him with a new dining ware, because she thought 'her husband deserv'd a silver spoon and China bowl as well as any of his neighbors.'"

This stood out to me as not only for the author's reasoning but as evidence of a prevailing American attitude that one's possessions must be as good, if not better than his neighbors'. This seems to me to be a case of "keeping up with the Jones's" that even seemed to exist in the time of Franklin. Just a thought, let me know what you guys think.

With reference to the fill in the blank exam questions that we talked about in class today do you guys think that we need to concentrate on people/places/dates etc. from the novels we are reading or should we concentrate more on the online text readings and wikipedia articles that Dr.Benson assigns?

Keowee:
Keowee was a cherokee town in the present day upstate of South Carolina, located in Oconee County, near the Keowee River. The town is gone now, submerged beneath the waters of Lake Keowee. The town was destoyed during the 18th century by the British and the lake was made in the latter half of the 20th century.

McFall, Pearl. The Keowee River and Cherokee background. Pickens, S. C. ; 1966
Hembree, Michael. Keowee : the story of the Keowee River Valley in Upstate South Carolina. Greenville, S.C. 1995

Join, or Die
This was the famous political cartoon created by Benjamin Franklin. First published in 1754, it is a woodcut showing a cut up snake with each piece of the snake marked with the initials of a british colony. It was originally written for the french and indian war, but later came into use again during the american revolution and later the american civil war.

Olson, Lester. Benjamin Franklin's vision of American community : a study in rhetorical iconology. Columbia, S.C. : University of South Carolina Press, 2004.
Mathews, L.K. "Benjamin Franklin's plan for a colonial union, 1750-1775." The American political science review (August 1914), 393-412

The American Enlightenment
The American Enlightenment in large part occurred because of America’s ties to England. English social, scientific, and political ideas were exported to America from as early as the late 1600’s. Some of the more significant ideas to come out of the American Enlightenment were the political ideas of John Locke which were instrumental in establishing the idea of American Government. American thinkers like Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and other founding fathers took bits and pieces of ideas from the enlightenment and combined them with their own to form the foundation for our country.

Hooker, Richard. "The American Enlightenment." Washington State University.
1996. http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/AMERICA/ENLIGHT.HTM

Weinberger, Jerry. "Benjamin Franklin unmasked : on the unity of his moral, religious, and political thought." University Press of Kansas. 2005

The Olive Branch Petition
The Olive Branch Petition was written on July 8th 1775. The Petition was given to King George in the Hopes that the colonists could have the new laws and acts repealed while remaining loyal to the crown. The colonists did this by reassuring the king of their loyalty and praising him yet still expressing discontent over new laws and regulations. The Petition was signed by 12 of the 13 colonies and was the colonist’s last attempt to avoid war. The Petition officially failed July 4th 1776 when Jefferson’s Declaration f Independence was signed. Some attribute the Petition’s failure to the fact that while they sent this letter they still prepared for war and this angered the king.

"American War of Independence." http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/museum/item.asp?item_id=28
that site has background history as well as the text of the Petition

Stubs:

1. "Florida Territory"
The Florida Territory was originally a Spanish possesion that was aquirred in 1821 by the United States. Andrew Jackson played a big role in shaping Florida's history; leading the Seminole Wars and eventually becoming the first governer. The Florida Territory became a state on March 3, 1845.

Remini, Robert V. The Life of Andrew Jackson. New York: Penguin Books, 1990.
Fuller, Hubert B. The Purchase of Florida. Gainsville: University of Florida Press, 1964.
Peters, Virginia B. The Florida Wars. Hamden: Archon BOoks, 1979.

2. Alaska Territory

The Alaskan Territory was purchased from Russia in 1867. It was considered a barren place of no real value until gold was struck there in the late ninteenth century. It was used as a base of military operations in WWII and became a state on January 3, 1959

Nichols, Jeannette P. Alaska. New York: Russell & Russell Inc., 1979
-. Alaska Goldrush Historic Landmarks. United States National Park Service Brochure, 1998.

Wikipedia Stubs:

Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site:
I chose this topic because the site is litterally 5 miles from my house and I've visited it on many occasions. For those of you who don't know, Carl Sandburg was an American poet and author most noted for his extremely long and in-depth biography of Abraham Lincoln. While he is often associated with the midwest, Sandburg spent the last 22 years of his life at this site in Flat Rock, NC, and published more than one-third of his works while living there.

Steichen, Paula, [i]Carl Sandburg Home: Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site, North Carolina[/i]. Washington D.C.: US Dept. of the Interior, 1982.

Reuther, Galen, [i]The Carl Sandburg Home: Connemara[/i]. Charleston: Arcadia, 2006.

Provisional Confederate States Constitution
I'm very interested in the Civil War and the Confederacy, and this topic just looked interesting to me. Turns out, when I emailed this to Dr. Benson, he informed me that the man who chaired the committee that drafted the Provisional Constitution also was the original owner of the land that Carl Sandburg Home is on. Roads and trails are still named after him (Christopher Memminger). Anyways this Constitution was a temporary one drawn up right after secession and was later replaced.

Lee, Charles Robert, Jr., [i]The Confederate Constitutions[/i]. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1963.

Robinson, Wiliam M., Jr., "A New Deal in Constitutions." [i]The Jornal of Southern History[/i]. Vol. 4, No. 4. Nov. 1938, pp. 449-461.

Wikipedia Stubs:

1.) The Wanderer (slave ship). This ship was the last to transport slaves from Africa to the United States. This final importation of slaves, however, took place approximately fifty years after the slave trade was outlawed. Attempted prosecution of this action then contributed to the growing unrest, which eventually erupted into the civil war. During the civil war, The Wanderer saw service for both sides at different times.

Fromageot, Henri. "American and British Claims Arbitration Tribunal: In the Matter of the Wanderer." American Journal of International Law. (April, 1922): 305-314.

Davis, Robert Ralph Jr. "Buchanian Espionage: A Report on Illegal Slave Trading in the South in 1859." Journal of Southern History. (May, 1971): 271-278.



2.) Benedict Arnold's letter "To the Inhabitants of America" is an open letter, which attempts to convince the people of America to rejoin with Great Britain instead of joining with the newly formed government under the Articles of Confederation. He drafted and published this letter after defecting to Great Britain. This article was responded to and argued against by such notable statesmen as Noah Webster.

Spaulding, E. Wilder. "The Connecticut Courant, a Representative Newspaper in the Eighteenth Century." New England Quarterly. (July, 1930): 443-463.

"Benedict Arnold's Letter to The Inhabitants of America"
http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/w...ld/text_version.htm

I have chosen to do my write ups on the Military Assistance Advisory Group and the Syringe Tide

The Syringe Tide was a period during 1987-88 in New Jersey, where large amounts of medical waste were washing onto Atlantic Ocean beaches in Jersey Shore communities in Monmouth and Ocean counties. The syringes and other medical waste had washed away from the Fresh Kills Landfill in Staten Island. New York City was forced to pay for the cleanup after New Jersey took them to court. This has resulted in strict regulation for medical waste.

Military Assistance Advisory Group was the group of "advisors" sent in to Vietnam to offer advise and help the Vietanmese army. This was the first wave of American involvement in Vietnam. After the initial group the US sent more and more advisors until troops were sent finally commited.

Here are my two Wikipedia topics:

1. Puget Sound War

The Puget Sound War was a series of short skirmishes in the years of 1855-56 between native tribes of Washington State and white settlers who were encroaching upon their land. Unfavorable peace treaties combined with tension between settlers and natives tipped the scales towards war. During and after the war, Chief Leschi of the Nisqually tribe emerges as a hero and a martyr as he is betrayed by this own people and turned over to state authorities for murder. His trial brought about the fundamental question of the legitimacy of the punishment for murder during wartime. After the first jury was unable to reach a a decision, he was convicted a year later and sentenced to be hanged. The legitimacy of his punishment is still debated in the Northwest today, even by the Washington State Legislature in 1994.

Schuetz, Janice E. "Episodes in the Rhetoric of Government-Indian Relations." Westport, Conn: Praeger, 2002.

Meeker, Ezra. "Pioneer Reminiscences of Puget Sound." Seattle, WA: Lowman & Hanford, 1905.

2. The Great Seattle Fire

The Great Seattle Fire of 1889 was ignited by an overheated cast-iron glue pot and was intensified by a poor water supply and the chance location of a nearby liquor store that fueled the fire with alcohol. The fire lasted for the better part of a day and destroyed twelve city blocks. However, it brought about many positive changes in Seattle; from the advent of a new professional (not volunteer) fire department and the rebuilding of the destroyed building with brick, not wood. This brick architecture is still a main feature of Seattle’s Pioneer Square district, which incurred much damage by the fire.

"The Great Seattle Fire, June 6 1889." Washington State Genealogical and Historical Review, Vol 1, no. 2. South Prarie, WA: Meico Associates, 1983.

Warren, James R. "The Day Seattle Burned." Seattle, WA: J.R. Warren, 1989.

Lowell Girls:
Lowell girls were women who worked in New England factories in the 1800’s.
These women, whose ages ranged between the early teens to the mid thirties, often performed the task of replacing the bobbins on the frames in cotton mills. They lived in provided housing and worked long hours. Away from family members, working long hours, the women petitioned for better work environment. They were no longer a necessity when immigrants were willing to work for lower wages.

Josephson, Hannah. The Golden Threads; New England’s Mill Girls and Magnates.
 New York, Duell, Sloan, and Pearce, 1949

Robinson, Harriet Jane Hanson. Loom and Spindle, or, Life Among the Early Mill Girls: With a Sketch of “The Lowell Offering” and some of its Contributors. Kailua, Hawaii: Pres Pacifica, 1976

Red Shirt (Factories):
There is an active Red Shirt organization that rallies for Southern heritage and protests at NAACP events. In 1876 the Red Shirts, a militant white political organization , supported Wade Hampton, a former Confederate general and the Democratic Party candidate for governor. They were active here in South Carolina

Ride with the Red Shirts to Freedom, http://www.redshirts.org [January 16, 2007]

Williams, Alfred Brockenbrough, Hampton and his Red Shirts; South Carolina’s Deliverance in 1876, (Charleston, S. C., Walker, Evans & Cogswell Company) [c1935]

1. Back-to-Africa Movement
 Once Africans were captured and brought across the Atlantic on the horrific Middle Passage, they were put into slavery in South America, the Caribbean, or the United States. By the late eighteenth century, a growing number of people in the United States began to express uneasiness with the slave system. George Washington, the nation's first President, freed his slaves upon his death in 1799. Others did the same, and the number of free blacks in America began to rise sharply in many areas during the nineteenth century. At the same time, abolitionist groups that demanded the emancipation of all slaves rose in strength.
 From this climate was born the idea of colonization, which proposed sending blacks, free and slave, back to Africa. The plan was supported by many of America's most prominent citizens, and by 1817 the movement began officially with the founding of the American Colonization Society. Sending their first blacks to Africa in 1820, the effort faltered at first due to its failure to find suitable territory on which to settle. The problem was solved, however, after the U.S. was able to acquire a large portion of land on the west coast of the continent. Liberia was created from this early settlement, and later became an independent country. Colonization continued sporadically for the next few decades, but support was inconsistent. The Civil War, and the emancipation that came with it, basically brought an end to the era of colonization in the United States.

Boley, G.E. Saigbe. "Liberia: The Rise and Fall of the First Republic." Macmillan Publishers, London, 1983.

Cassell, Dr. C. Abayomi. "Liberia: History of the First African Republic." Fountainhead Publishers Inc., New York, 1970.

Miller, Floyd J. "The Search for a Black Nationality: Black Emigration and Colonization, 1787-1863." University of Illinois Press, Urbana, Illinois, 1975.

West, Richard. "Back to Africa." Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., New York, 1970.


2. Freedmen’s Town
 Immediately west of downtown Houston lies the city's oldest Black community. This community is commonly known as Fourth Ward, but its original name is Freedmen's Town, given by freed slaves who settled it. Freedmen's Town was established immediately after the Civil War when many farmers gave or sold their truck farms and property to freed slaves. Freedmen's Town prospered during the turn of the century. Economic, community, and social development were at a peak until local government became threatened by the Black area's prosperity. Black businesses, homes, and churches soon became displaced in order to make way for "progress."

Nghiem, Emily, Patterson, Darrell and Lenwood Johnson. “Freedmen's Town - A Brief History.” Gladys Marie House of the Freedmen's Town Association,Inc. http://www.houstonprogressive.org/FTAbrief.txt

Wintz, Cary D. “Fourth Ward, Houston.” The Handbook of Texas Online. 2001. http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/FF/hpf1.html

1) I have chosen to do Gastonia in the 1930’s and the Letter to the Inhabitants of Canada. I am extremely excited about writing on Gastonia (my home town) due to the communist riot that occurred during this time. Growing up in the town you did not hear much about this event that was fairly big in southern history. Therefore I want to analyze why this is not spoken about more often, and what impacts there are on the town today.

Vern Smith, “Files on the Industrial Workers of the World, 1916-1935, bulk 1924-1925,”
1916-1935
Location: Cornell
George James Saul "The Making of a Rebel in America: an Unfinished Autobiography," 1969. Draft
Location: Cornell


2) The Letter to the Inhabitants of Canada is also interesting due to the fact that it is something that we did discuss indirectly in class. The question of why other colonies did not join in the revolution is an interesting one and should be reflected on in my examination of this petition of help in the Revolutionary War.

United States Continental Congress, “A letter to the inhabitants of the province of Quebec,” 1774
Location: University of Alberta

Massachusetts Historical Society, “Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society, for the year 1799,” Vol. VI of the first series.
Location: Old Colonial Library Network

Wikipedia Stubs:

Project SHAD:
This is an acronym that stands for Shipboard Hazard and Defense. It was to test the vulnerability of US warships to biological and chemical warfare during the 1960's. This is a major controversy that the Department of Defense is actively trying to declassify and inform the public concerning this blemish in US History, recent as it is. The origin of the project was defense, but the reality of the project was that it expiremented on American Servicemen, some of which were exposed to extremely harmful bacteria and hazardous chemicals.

United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Armed Services. Subcommittee on Personnel, "The Department of Defense's inquiry into Project 112/Shipboard Hazard and Defense (SHAD) tests : hearing before the Subcommittee on Personnel of the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate, One Hundred Seventh Congress, second session, October 10, 2002," United States Congress, S. hrg. 107-810 (2003), 107-861.

United States. Congress. House. Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Subcommittee on Health, " Military operations aspects of SHAD and Project 112 : hearing before the Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, House of Representatives, One Hundred Seventh Congress, second session, October 9, 2002," United States Congress, US GPO no.: 2003-0246-P (2003).

Kane Letter:
James Polk circulated this letter during his campaign in 1844 in order to address the topic of tariffs, free trade, and protectionism. This letter was the only source of opinion on the matter, a matter that his opponent Henry Clay was very adamant about.

As of yet, I do not have much in the way of articles discussing the Kane Letter. All I have is the brief Wikipedia stub and the actual Kane Letter on a website which has little scholarly background (http://www.arts.mcgill.ca/programs/history...ePolkKaneLetter.htm).

Edited by author 01-16-2007 12:08 PM
I have chosen to do "The New Orleans Riot" and the "Maryland Toleration Act" for my wikipedia stubs.
The New Orleans Riot was a riot that occured on July 30, 1866. The event took place on the streets of New Orleans as a response to a march by African American and white ex-Union soldiers. Over 50 men were killed and more than 200 were injured during the riot. The United States Army responded to the riot by declaring New Orleans under martial law, but this was largely ineffective. The greater importance of this riot can be seen by its effect on the political landscape of the time. Because of the riot the Republican party gained control of both the house and the senate in 1866.

Dale A. Somers, "Black and White in New Orleans: A Study in Urban Race Relations, 1865-1900," The Journal of Southern History, Vol. 40, No. 1 (Feb., 1974), pp. 19-42.

Gilles Vandal, "The New Orleans Riot of 1866: Anatomy of a Tragedy," The Journal of Southern History, Vol. 50, No. 1 (Feb., 1984), pp. 137-138.

The Maryland Toleration Act, also known as the "Act Concerning Religion" was passed in 1649 by the colonial assembly of the Province of Maryland. It made religious toleration of all Christians a law and seemed to be a step in the direction towards equality and the first amendment, but it was not without its controversies. Though this law protected Christian churches, it made denying the divinity of Jesus a capital crime. Thus, Maryland after the Act Concerning Religion actually had less religious toleration.

Thomas O'Brien Hanley, "Church and State in the Maryland Ordinance of 1639" Church History, Vol. 26, No. 4 (Dec., 1957), pp. 325-341.

Samuel Rabinove, "The Right of Religious Liberty for One Is a Right for Others and a Responsibility for All" Journal of Law and Religion, Vol. 8, No. 1/2 (1990), pp. 243-245.

Wikipedia Stubs Project
1) Operation Mountain Viper: OMV was a U.S. led military operation which began in late August, 2003 in the Deh Chopan district in south central Afghanistan. It was at that point the largest combat operation undertaken since Operation Anaconda in 2001, and involved the fiercest fighting experienced in Afghanistan since then. The main U.S. element involved was comprised of soldiers from the 2nd Battalion, 22nd Infantry Regiment, 10th Mountain Division, along with various Special Operations Forces.
2-22 conducted an Air Mobile Assault to clear a 10 kilometer by 6 kilometer corridor, with USSF and Afghan Militia operating on the periphery. The object was to either destroy all insurgents in the corridor or flush them into open and visible terrain to be eliminated by close air support.

Col. Rod Davis, "Division Soldiers Help Kill Enemy Fighters," Fort Drum Blizzard (11 Sep 2003)
Andrew Maykuth, "An Afghan Rebuilding Takes Shape," The Philadelphia Inquirer (6 Oct 2003)

2) Operation Mountain Resolve: OMR was conducted in November, 2003. This operation was significant because it was conducted in one of the most remote areas of Afghanistan. Involving elements of the 10th Mountain Division, 75th Ranger Regiment, and multiple other Special Operations Units, the operation took place in the Nuristan Province, a very remote area in northeastern Afghanistan.
The main phase of the operation began with an air mobile insertion into a remote river valley in the Hindu Kush Mountains by two companies from the 2nd Battalion, 22nd Infantry. Conducting difficult movement through the mountains to clear two objectives named Colt and Winchester, respectively, in ten days the unit covered roughly 65 kilometers in some of the most difficult terrain in Afghanistan. Operation Mountain Resolve marked the largest military operation in this area since Alexander the Great.

Defend America, "10th Mtn. Div. Shows its Mettle in Operation Resolve," http://www.defendamerica.mil/articles/nov2003/a111703f.html [14 January 2007]
CNN.com, "U.S. Forces Kill Afghan Rebel," http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/cent....us.operation.reut/ [15 January 2007]

TJ, I agree with you all the way. There is a double standard today. Women are allowed to work outside the home, yet they are still expected to take care of the home and the children. Even if women do have more freedom in choices now, it seems those extra choices have tied women down even in more in some ways because they have more responsibility in the work place and at home. Marriage and family seem to rely too much on the women.

Wikipedia Stubs Topics

Ostend Manifesto

This treaty in particular played an important role in shaping both European perceptions of the United States, while at the same time shaping perceptions of those in the North by those in the South. During a turbulent time in North American history politically, the desire to aquire Cuba shows a governmental suspicion of the Anglo-Franco alliance in Europe and a drive to increase American influence in opposition to any type of Anglo-Franco cooperation that might result across the Atlanitc. Southerners also view expainsion south as a plot by the north to extent anti-slavery sentiment beyond the boundaries of the country as it was at the time, threatening Southern economic interests.

Gavin B. Henderson, “Southern Designs on Cuba, 1854-1857 and some European Opinions,” The Journal of Southern History, Vol. 5, No. 3 (Aug., 1939), 371-385.

David Potter, “The Impending Crisis, 1848-1861,” Tennessee Historical Quarterly, Vol. 35, No. 3 (Fall 1976), 329-335.


Treaty of Amity and Commerce (United States-Japan)

When Commodore Matthew Perry opened up the East to Western trade, the implications of any treaties dealing with trade were of the highest necessity and attention. By analyzing this treaty in particular, one can better understand how cultural differences created tension that exploded during the 1930s and 1940s and that still affect international relations today, especially with the rise of economic and social powers in the East.

Gordon Ireland, “The Validity of Treaties in Japan,” California Law Review, Vol. 31, No. 4 (Sept. 1943), 405-414.

Shin-ichi Fumoto, “Shogunal diplomacy after the establishment of the US-Japan Treaty of Amity and Commerce: focusing on the ‘Three Articles of Shimoda,’” Rekishigaku Kenkyu, Vol. 1, No. 5 (2001), 1-15.

Speaking along the lines of women, I am not one, therefore I don't really have a very good idea of what I'm talking about but I'm speaking as an observer. It seems to me that the past events in womens' suffrage has brought about two camps of women. There are still a large portion of women who look forward to becomeing a housewife and raising children, maybe taking a teaching job at some point. Men look at this and say "See we were right, this is what you are supposed to do." Haha, joke. Then there also seems to be this other group of women who are ambitious, competitive, and ready to take on the world. Society seems to look down on both sides. To the homemakers society says "Why are you wasting your hard earned right to compete with men on every level?" To the ambitious society seems to say "What your doing is not natural, you should be raising a family." This brings about another group of women who try to juggle it all. However this seems to put immesureable amount of stress on family life and marriage. I feel like women now have to live by a double standard.

I have chosen the topics “North Star” and “Osage Indian Murders” as my focus for the Wikipedia article stubs.

 Born in 1847, the “North Star” was a weekly edition created by Fredrick Douglass and was funded by abolitionists. Supporters and readers alike found the publications to report information on issues of slavery, women, and the political actions that accompanied these matters. Editions of Douglass’s “North Star” were printed until 1851, when the subject matter was renamed “Fredrick Douglass’s Paper” and became an addition to a larger newspaper called, “The Liberty Party.” Though the “North Star” was not the first public black newspaper in the United States, the views of Douglass and others, who supported the paper, became helpful catalysts in the eruption of the Civil War.
Sources:
Diedrich, Maria Love Across Color Lines: Ottilie Assing and Fredrick Douglass, New York: Hill and Wang Press, (1999), 86 -181.

Fee Jr. Frank E., “Intelligent Union of Black with White, Fredrick Douglass and the Rochester Press 1847-1848”, Journalism History, 31:1 (Spring 2005), 34-45.

Yellin, Jean Fagan, and John C. Van Horne. The Abolitionist Sisterhood, Women’s Political Culture in Antebellum America, Philadelphia: Library Company of Philadelphia, (1994), 210

Nothing is more interesting in the historical accounts of the Osage Nation then the Osage Indian Murders, which occurred in the early 1920s. “The Reign of Terror,” was the name given to the event by a local Oklahoma newspaper when two bodies identified to be relatives, were found murdered in different locations of the Osage Indian Reservation in 1921. Despite the efforts of local authorities the murderers were not found until the Osage Tribal Elders involved the FBI. In 1923 fifteen people were charged with the murders of nine members of a full-blooded Osage family. The motive of the murders was the inheritance of head rights given to the full-blooded Osage after the 1906 Osage Allotment Act. This event causes many speculations to when the physical perception of “Frontier” wilderness actually ended before the 1900s or slightly after.
Sources:
Bailey, Garrick, and Daniel C. Swan. Art of the Osage, St. Louis: Saint Louis Art Museum, (2004) 138-142.

Burns, Louis F., A History of the Osage People, Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, (1989) 439-443.

Grounds, Richard A., George E. Tinker, and David E. Wilkins. Native Voices: American Indian Identity and Resistance, Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, (2003) 285-295.

Red Group Posting

First of all, I would like to say that I enjoyed Todd's post. I think that issue is an important one and it can only help us to look to past events for advice and direction. I think its important to note that while so many churches and religious groups are struggling over this issue, there are many that have benefitted positively from opening their hearts and minds. I'm not saying that I agree with either side, I have done nowhere near enough research or soul searching to define what I think about the topic. But I do think its interesting that what one group can find repulsive and disrespectful another can find encouraging and uplifting.

Also, I think the chapter "Material Witness" is an interesting one. I think it would be exciting to find and research old artifacts and their use. I thought it was interesting that the presence of some items could denote class status, but that in some cases, the bed curtains for example, items were necessary for survival no matter the cost. I think this would be a fabulous puzzle to try to put together. Excavated items, old documents, diaries, and information on the climate and area all help to tell a story.

Wikipedia Stubs Project

Midnight Judges

During the turbulent election of 1800 John Adams ran for re-election, competing with Alexander Hamilton for the Federalist vote. Adams finished third in the presidential election behind Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr. Adams was bitter about these results and one of his last acts in office was to fill newly created judgeship availabilities with Federalist judges. The Democratic-Republicans were very angry with such immediate action.

The Judiciary Act of 1801 was an effort to fix the “perceived deficiencies” of the federal judicial structure. It abolished circuit court duty of the justices of the Supreme Court and created 6 new, independent circuit courts presided over by new judges. This was a blatant act by Adams to fill the judicial branch with federalists because Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans gained the presidency and control of the House of Representatives.


Gilje, Paul A. Nash, Gary B. Encyclopedia of American History: Revolution and New Nation 1761 to 1812. p. 193, 301 – 303.

Ferling, John E. Adams vs. Jefferson : The Tumultuous Election of 1800.
Oxford [England]; New York : Oxford University Press, 2004.

Ordinance of Nullification

The history of nullification stems from the weak and ineffective structure of the government from the Articles of Confederation. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson were proponents of the idea of nullification. They asserted that states have the right to nullify “onerous or offensive federal laws” in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 and 1799.

The Nullification Crisis of 1832 was brought on by the declaration of the South Carolina state government that the Tariffs of 1828 and 1832 were null and void. President Andrew Jackson eventually sent a naval flotilla and threats of ground troops for South Carolina in order to control the situation.

Rohrbough, Malcolm J. Nash, Gary B. Encyclopedia of American History: Expansion and Reform 1813 to 1855. p. 263 – 265.

Finkel,Norman J. Commonsense Justice: Jurors' Notions of The Law. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1995.

Edited by author 01-16-2007 09:48 AM
What do you think pains God more?...or what do you think causes more harm? Women who have risen up and taken ordained leadership roles in their churches, or wedges and divisions that have been driven straight through the passionate and communal Christian community because of close-minded people who don't know how to get along with fellow believers. Divisions in the Church is the first topic brought up by Paul in his letter to the church in Corinth. Then he writes about it again and again in later chapters. I'd say he felt it was an important issue that needed to be addressed.
Why do you think we have so many different denominations. I bet those started way back when, once the church started dividing over stupid issues. Each disagreement caused cells of people and led them to think they should be progressivists and write up their own doctrines. Does anyone think that having a female associate pastor is going to bring the demise of Christianity? Probably not. But how many of you can see the choke-hold influence of division in causing the body of Christ to keep being broken apart. Maybe we get over the little issues and move our focus to problems that really matter.

I don't know much history...but I've always heard that the reason to study history is to learn how to better handle and navigate through the future. So in this case, look to the past. The church has become more and more divided. What does that hold for the future if we don't start learning from the past?

Red Group Posting:

With all this talk about gender divisions and equality, I'm suprised nobody's brought up any ties with the Bible. Their are many passages in the scriptures that suggest women shouldn't preach, or hold positions of authority over men. I wonder, with all of its spiritual benefits, how much did the Great Awakening contribute to the lack of women's rights in American society?

Ben, you end your paragraph by saying that women were already climbing the ladder, I fail to see how home additions contribute to it. I mean they certainly show a certain ammount of influence by women in the American household, but not in American society in general. I don't really think that demonstrates the advancement towards women's suffrage. Also, this advancement wasn't moving along at too great a pace to begin with. In chapter 5 of [i]An Outline of American History[/i], in the Seneca Falls Section, it clearly states that "the majority of those in attendance could not accept the thought of women voting. "

Edited by author 01-16-2007 02:12 AM
Group Red Posting:

This is a late posting for me, both in time left before class and also in time I was requested to do in the first place. But yet it is still a post nonetheless.

Lorin, I am guessing you take issue with Rousseau's discourse concerning how women are actually in control of men, and I do as well. It is just an excuse to keep women where they were at that time because things were apparently good for the men and they did not want that situation to change. Young boys (assuming they are the minds of the future nation of which Rousseau spoke about) spent their mornings and afternoons with their fathers. As After the Fact states, families on the farm had many children because it made good economic sense. Boys worked with their fathers out on the fields, and girls worked with their mothers in the house. Boys were with their fathers for most of the time, and going along with personal experience, time spent with my father was often filled with pontification on his part, spinning fantastic yarns and always ending it with a good rule to live by. So at least in that regard, women do not have control of the minds of the future nation.

With the inception of home manufacturing, the beginning of women's equality can be seen. Even the engraving of Hannah Bradford's cupboard has elements of women rising in their comparative rank. The fact that it had the maiden name and kept primarily the wife's affects is a start. Of course womens' belongings were still transitory and not as highly regarded as the mans' belongings, but it shows an increasing independence. Home manufacturing, presumably, gave women some say as to what happened to the money they acquired through their working. After the Fact notes that Bixby's wife and daughter's fruits of their ventures with home manufacturing built the additions to their house, which included white (fashionable) paint in the rooms as well as the parlor becoming a separate entity. These additions, as ugly as it may sound, are largely the desires of women, being concerned with the aesthetics of the household rather than the practicality. Women were already climbing the ladder at this point, it was only a matter of time until suffrage was next.

Edited by author 01-15-2007 10:45 PM
Wikipedia Stubs

1.Give me liberty or give me death

The final part of a speech delivered by Patrick Henry on March 23, 1775 while in the Virgina House of Burgesses. These words are strongly believed to be the catalyst that propelled Virginia troops to join the fighting in the Revolutionary War. As time passed Henry's words have become well known as an example of the American Spirit.

Beeman, Richard R. "Patrick Henry, a biography [by] Richard R. Beeman." New York: McGraw-Hill, 1974

McCants, David A. "Patrick Henry, the Orator." New York: Greenwood Press, 1990

2.April 1983 United States Embassy Bombing

A suicide bomb delivered via a van struck the US Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon in April of 1983 and resulted in the deaths of 63 people; 17 of the victims were American citizens. The attack is considered to be the start of terrorist attacks on American targets by radical Islamic groups. Later evidence showed that Hezbollah was believed to be behind the attacks.

United States. Cong. United States. Congress. House. Committee on Foreign
Affairs. The U.S. Embassy Bombing in Beirut : Hearing before the Committee
on Foreign Affairs and its Subcommittees on International Operations and on
Europe and the Middle East of the House of Representatives, Ninety-eighth
Congress, first session, June 28, 1983. Washington: G.P.O., 1983.

Dammarell, Anne, and Mariane Votaw. "History: US Embassy Bombing." Beirut
Memorial Online. 15 Jan. 2007 <http://www.beirut-memorial.org>;.

In chapter 5, in the last section, women's rights are discussed. The section states that "At Seneca Falls, Cady Stanton gained national prominence as an eloquent writer and speaker for women's rights. Years later, she declared that she had realized early on that without the right to vote, women would never achieve their goal of becoming equal with men." The women at the Seneca Falls convention, like Lucretia Mott and Susan B. Anthony, believed women should not be held down in society. They believed women should be able to vote and not only be housewives. They wanted to be considered equal to men. Rousseau thought the opposite. He believed that women should stay within the home and raise the children. Women rule over men because they control the minds of the future of the nation. The minute women try to pursue what men have is when men truly own women. I thought this was very interesting. Thoughts on this anyone?

Wikipedia Assignment Stubs

Dakota Territory:
The Dakota Territory is the northernmost land that was obtained by the United States from the Louisiana Purchase. It was formally designated as a territory in 1861 and was taken from lands formerly a part of the Minnesota and Nebraska territories. J.B.S. Todd, Abraham Lincoln’s cousin in law, lobbied personally for the Dakotas to achieve territory status. In 1889 the territory was broken up mainly into North and South Dakota. The original Dakota Territory also encompassed parts of current Montana and Wyoming. Its significance lies in the westward expansion of the United States that eventually leads to a country from "sea to shining sea."

Gregg, John B. “Dry Bones: Dakota Territory Reflected.” Sioux Falls, Iowa: Sioux Printing, 1989.

Hudson, John C. “Migration to an American Frontier.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 66:2 (1976): 242-265.

Big Bottom Massacre:
The Big Bottom Massacre occurred on January 2, 1791 in an area which is now Stockport, Ohio. Land was sold off to different companies during this time in order to further western expansion. One of these companies was the Ohio Company of Associates. Despite noted Native American hostility in the area they still decided to form a settlement that was unprotected. In a surprise attack a group of 25 Delaware and Wyandot Indians killed 11 men, 1 woman, and 2 children while taking three others hostage. Immediately following this event the Ohio Company began providing more protection for their settlers along the frontier.

Cayton, Andrew R. “The Center of a Great Empire: The Ohio Country in the early American Republic. Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press, 2005.

Lane, Eula Rogers. “Ode to the Big Bottom Massacre. Richardson Printing, 1975.

Katherine's post got me thinking on the mentality of the winning party. Looking at human action I think it is fairly safe to presume that after victory one's compassion to the defeated party is rather limited. The Native Amercian legacy in the United States is evidence of this, as the U.S. would win (land etc.)and then further punish a defeated people.

Edited by author 01-15-2007 02:34 PM
Pearl incident:

 It concerns an 1848 escape attempt by slaves on a ship called the Pearl. Around 67 slaves with a few white men escaped from Washington DC on the Pearl, hoping to find freedom for the slaves. Another boat was launched to capture them before they got too far down the Potomac. The escape failed, and all the men were captured. The Pearl also reminded me of the slave mutiny on the ship Amistad.

Rohrs, Richard C. “Antislavery Politics and the Pearl Incident of 1848.” The Historian. 56:4 (1994): 711+.

Pacheco, Josephine F. The Pearl: A Failed Slave Escape on the Potomac. Chapel Hill, NC: UNC Press, 2005.

Immigration Act of 1917:
  
This immigration act was passed by Congress overriding the veto of President Woodrow Wilson. The law excluded most Asians and mentally or physically defective people from entering the country. It also raised the entry tax immigrants had to pay to enter the US. It is considered to be a very discriminatory and harsh law which was later repealed.

Van Nuys, Frank. Americanizing the West: Race, Immigrants, and Citizenship, 1890-1930. Lawrence, Kansas: University of Kansas Press, 2002.

Campi, Alicia J. “Closed Borders and Mass Deportations: The Lessons of the Barred Zone Act.” The American Immigration Law Foundation. <http://www.ailf.org/ipc/policy_reports_2005_barredzone.asp>;
[15 January 2007].

Delaware Colony:

In 1631 the first white settlement was made on the land named after governor De La Warr. Between this time and 1680, Delaware inhabitants included the Swedish, Dutch and English. Delaware is one of the few colonies that has not been subject to current in debth research by historians. Thus, making it a future important reasearch subject.

Hoffecker, Carol; Richard Waldron; Lorraine E. Williams; Barbara E. Benson. "New Sweden in America." Newark: University of Delaware Press, 1995.

Munroe, John A. "Colonial Delaware: A History." Millwood, NY KTO 1978 XVII.

Red River Expedition:

In 1806 a group led by Thomas Freman and Peter Custis set out to locate the origin of the Red and Arkansas rivers. Thomas Jefferson instructed them to do so and give the United States claims to the south boundary of the Loisiana Territory.

"Journal of the American Geographical and Statistical Society", Vol. No. 6 (June., 1859), pp. 179-181.

Foreman, Grant. "Adventure on Red River. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1938. pp. XXXI, 199.

Edited by author 01-14-2007 11:55 PM
Moroccan-American Treaty

This is the longest-standing friendship agreement in United States history. In 1777, Sultan Sidi Muhammad Ben Abdullah of Morocco pursued a friendship agreement with the United States. He wanted to ensure good relations with the U.S.A. because of the possibility of increased trade and security. The Sultan knew that opening up its trade borders to a growing U.S.A. would help to assist in the growth of Morocco. Although no real agreement got enacted until 1786, Moroccan and US friendship was still considered tight and effective.

Wells, Sherrill B., “Long-time friends: A History of Early U.S.-Moroccan Relations 1777-1787”. Office of the Historian - United States Department of State. http://www.usembassy.ma/usmorrelations/ historicalbgrnd.htm.


Young, Richard. “The End of American Consular Jurisdiction in Morocco”
The American Journal of International Law. Vol. 51, No. 2, Apr., 1957 402-406. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=00029300%28195704%2951% 3A2%3C402%3ATEOACJ%3E2.0.CO%3B2-5



Geneva Summit

This was the first international summit of leaders from the United States and Russia. It was such a success that a breath of fresh air seemed to sweep across the entire world. It seemed as if people could get back to being optimistic about the future and security of their world. Tension was lessening between the world’s superpowers, and that was cause for celebration. There was a second summit in 1985

Bischof, Gunter. “Cold War Respite: The Geneva Summit of 1955” Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2000.

Cutler, Dr. Robert M., “What the [1985 Reagan–Gorbachev] Geneva Summit Was About”. http://www.robertcutler.org/pt86ucf.htm.

Wikipedia Stubs Topics:

1. Green Mound, FL- Green Mound is a site of archaeological interest that is located near my hometown just outside of Daytona. It is significant because it represents the remains of one of the largest pre-Columbian settlements in the area. Natives played a big part in the building of this country, so I feel that in order to better understand our roots, we must also understand theirs.
  
  Dan F. Morse, “Archaeological Investigations of Green Mound, Florida,” American Antiquity, (April 1962), 596-597

  Dana Ste. Claire, TRUE NATIVES: The Prehistory of Volusia County, Daytona Beach: The Museum of Arts and Sciences Daytona Beach, Florida, 1992), 9-32

2. The mechanization of coal mining- Because coal has historically formed the backbone of not only the energy market, but also of certain sectors of the economy in the U.S., I feel that this topic is significant to the development of our country. Once mining was mechanized however, an entire generation of men in the Ohio Valley area was left to fend for itself. I would like to demonstrate how the use of machinery rather than manpower devastated the economy, and more importantly the livelihood, of the rural Ohio Valley region.

  West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey, “History of West Virginia
Mineral Industries –Coal,”<http://www.wvgs.wvnet.edu/www/geology/geoldvco.htm>; [14 January
2007]

  James R. Green, “What's a Coal Miner to Do? The Mechanization of Coal Mining,” The Business History Review, (Spring 1991), 183-185

Here are my topics for the Wikipedia Assignment:

TREAY OF TIENTSIN - This treaty, signed in 1858, ending the opening portion of the Seconf Opium War. It was signed by France, the UK, Russia, and the United States, and later ratified by China. It opened ten ports in China to foreign trade, allowed Christian missionaries and foreign diplomats in China, as well as legalized the opium trade. This is a huge step in the formation of China into what we know it today.

Bloch, Kurt. "The Basic Conflict Over Foreign Concessions in China." Far Eastern Survey 8.10 (May 1939): 111-6.

Johnstone, William C. "International Relations: The Status of Foreign Concessions and Settlements in the Treaty Port of China." American Political Science Review 31.5 (Oct. 1937): 942-8.


WAR RELOCATION AUTHORITY - This was the group in charge of rounding up Japanese-Americans during World War II and moving them to special camps located throughout the desert (mainly in Arizona). It is an important topic because it questions the governments right to suspend certain freedoms for certain people during wartime.

Conn, Stetson. The Decision To Evacuate the Japanese From the Pacific Coast. Washington, D.C. : Center of Military History, U.S. Army, 1990.

Turner, Barry. The Origins and Development of the War Relocation Authority. Thesis: Duke University, 1968.

Myer, Dillon S. Uprooted Americans: The Japanese Americans and the War Relocation Authority during World War II. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1971.

I do agree somewhat with the remarks from Will and Katherine about the lack of remorse and subsequent "cover up" on the part of United States in the removal of Native Americans from their lands. What you both did not bring into your analysis of 18th century morality is that of the European view of the natives which the colonists held at that point in time. The colonists believed themselves to be superior to the "savages" they came upon both for religious and sociological reasons. We have already discussed in class about the mindset the colonialist hold about their future as the "chosen people." This ideal is seen in the religious intolerance present even within the christian groups in the colonies. While the reasoning of the colonists in remorselessly taking over native American lands may seem very immoral, especially to me, it can not be overlooked that in the eyes of colonialists it was much less of a immoral act. If you believe you are the chosen people and chosen race then its not so ridiculous to think that you would take over a group you considered to be "savages" and not show any remorse. I disagree with these actions by our forefathers but I can at least understand in some small way why they would do such acts. Just my thoughts.

Edited by author 01-12-2007 06:02 PM
I agree with you Katherine. Throughout all of US History, whenever we (the US) take over someone we never feel remorse, and even sometimes we repress the memories of those events. Take our annexation of Hawaii for example. Hawaii didn't willing join the union, but were actually invaded by the US (on behest of the Dole fruit company) and the Queen actually deposed. Now we don't remember these things for a very simple reason: if we remembered them, would we agree? Probably not. We look back on the Indian removals after the revolution and in the mid 19th century and feel bad for the Native Americans and disagree with what our country did. How can we be good Americans if we don't agree with what our country did, right? I'll leave that to you...

I did like how we reviewed the different ideas about the making of the Constitution. I didn't like the "Epic of America" description of the Constitution. Many times I think that text books (especially high school text books) try to be overly patriotic and omit certain things that make America seem better and more nobler than it really is, all in order to get there books adopted by book review committees. I don't know how many of you guys are thinking about teaching History, but that would be a fun discussion one day: How popular will distorts the teaching of history in America.

One thing that has caught my attention while reading and discussing the matters between the Iroquios and Colonists, is the blatant lack of remorse that the colonists felt. I think that it says alot about human nature when a group of people come to a new place and destroy the civilizations that were already there without giving a second thought. I could be complete wrong about this, but what I've gathered is that the colonists came, conquered, and moved on. they felt nothing for them completely rearranging the Indains' way of life and then ultimately killing them out altogether. I mean I wasnt there, but I still feel a little bit guilty about it.
    This is not so much a discussion of history, but of human nature and the abscesnce of a conscience or even self absorbance.

Hey my name is Erik Ross and I am a sophomore majoring in Communications and History. I am from Atlanta Ga. I am a huge Atlanta sports fan.
Two days ago in class it struck me how far America has drifted away from the ideas of Republicanism. I know alot of posts have been about Red Jacket but for me the ideals of Republicanism stole the show. After thinking about this more and more I really do have to disagree with Bailyn and his claims that the ideas of Locke and Smith are less important than Trenchnard and Gordon and the other four men who put together the ideals of a republic. Some of the aspects they listed we simply decided we wanted prosperity more than we wanted to uphold those aspects. An example is Slavery. We knew according Trenchnard and Gordon that Slavery was something that promoted inequality yet we still had slavery and even had the 3/5 compromise written in legislation.

How odd! Everyone in the colonies under the United Sates had a representative for their particular group. Why wasn’t it obvious for the Native Americans to have some too? Clearly the Europeans couldn’t understand their ways of thought. Why didn’t the people who lived in the Iroquois nations as adopted people stand up and commit themselves to the position? When a treaty was signed the Six Nations of the Iroquois believed in a unanimous decision regardless of if they agreed are not. They also believe by their laws, if they spoke in a conference whatever was said was as good as the written word. The central problem in setting up boundaries and treaties was miscommunication. Europeans saw an agreement as momentarily binding. Not so with the Iroquois are the other Natives for that matter. They believed an agreement was law and should not under any circumstances be crossed. Maybe, this is why they lost their land so rapidly as expansion consumed their territories.

Chris, I think that your argument makes a lot of sense considering the fact that the path that the Native Americans did take has left them as only a shadow of what they once were. Where I disagree is with the fact that the US government would be willing to allow the Indians to truly assimilate into the American society and government. This was a group of people that was consistently had been labeled as “savages” in American politics as well as being considered lesser people within society. Thus leading me to believe that the early Americans had little desire to help the Indians, much less assimilate and give them rights. Also if I was a member of a Indian nation that had been in place for hundreds of years and was asked to join an upstart government, I doubt I would.

In regard to our Red Jacket discussions I've given the idea of native compromise with the newly formed United States government some thought. As difficult as it would have been for a proud people to conform to what they saw as invaders, with the advantage of hindsight, I think it would be fair to say they may have fared better. The seeds for inclusion were there, since the U.S. had just fought a war for representation, the native americans may have been able to gain some sort of representation in the fledgling government, were they willing to suck up some pride and conform. I guess this is easy to say now, but surely seemed very different to them at the time, but it should have been evident that the white man was in America to stay, and it would become a necessity to peacefully co-habit in one society.

Mason! This is definitely a subject that I have been contemplating. This is a psychological issue if one is referring to the idea that “God’s chosen people” are actually passing down this ideology to generation to generation instead of realizing that in order to grow as a society and to evolve as human beings one must recognize change and adapt. There is also the concept that this, so called psychological matter really seems to be dominant in a Christian society, (just implying here that it seems to be more likely of occurring in this environment!).
For example, someone sent me a fabulous email regarding Billy Graham’s daughter and the problematic destruction of Hurricane Katrina. The question posed by the interviewer was something like, “Why did God allow such a terrible thing to happen?” Her response implied that the death, ruin, and utter chaos was God simply stepping aside. She went on to say that our country was founded by Christians and we have strayed from the path by pushing God out of our schools and businesses. In doing this God has responded to our lack of response towards him. He sent us a hurricane!
How many times does one have to run into situations like this? We all know a few things here: 1. The majority of schools are public, (government operated), 2. Church and state are to be separate, (therefore where’s the connection?), 3. Most of the founding fathers did have firm Unitarian, Baptist, and Puritan beliefs, (among others). Although, when the Enlightenment entered the scene, this movement influenced these men in ways that Christianity had never dreamed of. All of a sudden, reasoning and rationality was being incorporated into the foundations of our nation! The main thought in everyone’s head was, “Wow! If I take a good look around the world I live in, I am capable of creating a Constitution to benefit almost everyone!” In actuality our country is supported by the very ideas most Christian would not have accepted or agreed with. Is it possible to produce a government without the confines of superstition and without the rose colored glasses of tradition? To some extent probably not, but this particular frame of mind is clearly a durable ideology in America.

Today's class discussion brought forward a point about the roots of the revolution that I wanted to spend a little bit more time with. That is to say that, fundamentally, the colonial uprising and eventual revolution was a result of a basic breakdown in the ability of each side empathize with the position of the other. Each group possessed a particular worldview and, consequently, unique set of values based on their position. The King and Parliament necessarily had to view the American Colonies as a part of a larger colonial empire; in effect, a small piece of a much larger whole. The American Colonies did provide substantial resources, trade, etc. for the British government. However, with the acquisition of former French territories and the vast expansion of the empire, the cost of the colonies quickly became prohibitive. Especially, when colonists began overstepping the confines of British law (i.e. westward expansion). So, from the British perspective, it was perfectly reasonable to expect the colonists to offset their own expenses. The colonists, in turn, were arguing from an ideological standpoint about overarching principles of government power, responsibility, action, and representation. That is not to say that these arguments were without merit.
        As a result, however, each side is essentially engaging in a different conversation than the other. The "big picture" view adopted by the British government has a pragmatic need create revenue so that it can bear the financial burden of colonization. The colonists respond to this with an argument of political ideology. Therefore, the dialogue is occuring on two completely seperate levels of thought with neither side directly responding to the concerns of the other. This is indicative of an inability of either side to empathize with the position of the other. And, when the ability of one group to empathize with the other breaks down, conflict will inevitably ensue. All other considerations aside, I think this fundamental truth provides the foundation for the escalation of all other conflict. Thanks everybody.

A couple things stood out to me as causes for social and/or political conflict in Maryland. The first of which was the great re-distribution of land. There were many names in the index of people who incurred "levies for their support," which I understood to be the government reposessing their land. These government reposessions came at the result of the deep debt that citizens incurred (possibly because of taxes or the great number of public works endeavors as Casey mentioned). The other point that I found interesting (also as Casey mentioned) was the great number of name changes among Maryland citizens, possibly because of the number of divorces, or a transition to a more progressive, industrial society that significantly changed the domestic outlook. These points to me seem to be signs of social tension, and hopefully we can discuss this in class. Thanks.

Well, here's my post for the blue group... (And hurry up Blaine, it's getting late! lol)

 In doing this assignment, I chose to read through the index and keep a tally of how many times different areas of government, such as criminal matters, education, public works, economics, etc. were mentioned. By keeping track of such occurrences, when I finished reading the index, I was then able to go back and compare the regularity with which certain topics were brought up. This helped me to gain a better understanding of what was important to the citizens and lawmakers of this part of the country at this particular time.
 The first impression that I got was that the lawmakers, and presumably the voting public that they represented, had a great interest in public works endeavors. These projects ranged from building roads and bridges to distributing aid to the poor. Education also seemed to get a lot of attention. Of any of the topics that I saw in the index, these particular areas seemed to be the most popular. To me, this indicates that the public was very concerned with progress. Actions such as building a better infrastructure, educating the public, and helping to support the poor generally raise the standard of living and are a sign of progress and social change.
 It also seemed that matters of marriage and family seemed to be fairly numerous. While there were a few name changes and general family matters mentioned, what stood out to me was the number of divorces that the court granted. I believe that it would be safe to say that there were at least a handful of divorces of every page in the index. While the exact reason for this is unknown to me, my guess is that this trend would go hand-in-hand with the idea of the faster, more progress-oriented lifestyle I mention above.
 After reading the index, I also noticed a few things that seemed to be missing. For instance, while there were many mentions of divorce, there was no record of marriage. My best guess would be that the church continued to keep these records at this time. Also, there doesn’t seem to be any mention of birth and/or death. I would also guess that the church, or possibly the record-keepers of the smaller towns, kept these records.
 One thing that did not seem overly evident to me was any concrete sign of social tension. Sure the divorce rate seemed fairly high, but I’m not sure that would really be considered social tension or conflict. As a matter of fact, the index seemed to me as if it was promoting just the opposite. Actions that the index mentioned, such as giving financial aid to blacks and Jews would, in my perspective, ease tensions.
 Well I guess that’s all. Sorry if its long, but I wasn’t exactly sure what or how much to write. If anybody has any input on this, let me know. Thanks.

Brandon Reeser brought up a good point in our discussion today. He said something to the effect of how the Indians feel oppressed and that the white people are making it hard for them to preserve their heritage by forcing all of these "Western" istic ideas, traditions, techniques etc. (For example, brass pots are better than clay, guns are better than knives or arrows, red jackets are better than loin cloths...this one is up for debate because I think loin cloths would be quite comfortable). But I guess where I'm going with this is...Nowadays Native Americans fight so hard to keep their lands, their rights and their traditions, and they go as far as to insist that they be exempt from laws that all other Americans have to follow (ancient whale hunting techniques). If they want to claim Indian heritage just to exempt certain hunting restrictions, then they need to stop driving cars, stop wearing t-shirts, stop using Cutco knives, and get back to riding bareback on horses and sleeping under the stars. I think its either all or nothing, and I dont really like how different groups try to milk the sufferings of their relatives way longer than necessary. From what I learned in our discussion today, it happened, the Indians chose to adopt lots of White man practices, and its OK with me if they think about getting over it any time soon.

Yesterday in class the political framework by Bercovitch really sparked my interest. His policy that he calls "Jermiad" seems to me to be more of a psychological account of the situation instead of an explanation for what actually happens. We talked about how this has become the dominant political framwork today used by Americans. We have certainly seen political figures such as George Bush use this particular framework especially when involved in an election campaign. For explanation purposes it is necessary to recap the framework in which: 1. A community has a golden age where everyone believes in true principles. 2. In the current time we have fallen away from these principles. 3. Yes things are bad, but God has always tested his chosen people and by returning to these principles we can prove we are the "chosen people."
    The reason I said that it was a psychological explanation is because it sounds to me like this explanation is merely the thought pattern of human beings. This applies especially to attempting to convince why patterns of behavior are adopted. In most cases we do not see the society or person actually return to a way of life or a set or true principles but it is merely a nice way to comfort the mind about behavior or way of life. In most societies this reform is called for and usually the only way to return to a set of principles or way of life is a revolution of some sort. I thought it was very interesting because it seems to be a very basic explanation but it something that is not recognized very easily.

Building on the egalitarianism theme of the Quakers and others, I found it rather hard to put this theory into practice in the colonies, especially in the religious and racial sense. It seemed to me that the application of this philosophy into practice was limited, but it was a convenient excuse for many Christians to hold. In a strict sense of egalitarian philosophy, the Quakers would have to respect the beliefs of the Puritains while holding that all people are equal under the eyes of God. At the same time, to practice this belief meant leaving the Puritains to do as they would under their systems of belief, including the limitation of other denominations and discrimination against Catholics: thoroughly opposite of the philosophy itself. The same could be said for the aristocracy. In respecting their beliefs and morals as equal, they respect the institution of slavery. Egalitarianist philosophy was convenient for the plight of colonies, but the practice of such pure egalitarianism left much to be desired. This trend exists today; excuses are convenient, but walking the walk is much less common. Thus the plight of all philisophical systems emerges; few work well unless they are applied universally. Equality has yet to be fully deomonstrated in these United States currently, yet it was a staple of the American cause over 200 years ago.

In reading/class discussion about the Puritans I found it rather interesting the sentiments held towards England. The second generation being born in the Colonies had never been to England and only heard stories of how their fathers had been repressed there. Perhaps future generations continued to pass unto their children similar stories of how bad or evil England was/is; such actions would provide serious foundations for a movement away from England in the 18th century as witnessed by the American Revolution. I find it curious that the hotbed/source of a lot of anti-English sentiment is found throughout these areas of New England where Puritans had been strong in the 17th century. I would be willing to state that the Puritan heritage throughout New England served as a powerful catalyst in the drive towards American Independence.

Hey guys, my name is Eric Reese, and I am a Senior Business major. I went to high school in West Chester, PA, but my parents moved to Buffalo, NY. However, most of my family is from Western NC, so I call that home. I love both watching and playing any type of sport. I am currently on the Club Lacrosse team at Furman. I also enjoy anything and everything about the outdoors.

Presentation pages:

American Narratives:
     http://history.furman.edu/benson/hst21/sho...ricanNarratives.htm

American Revolution in Context
     http://history.furman.edu/benson/hst11/show/wcc.htm

Red Jacket:
     http://history.furman.edu/benson/hst21/sho...jacketquestions.htm

Some topics that I am considering for the wiki stubs project are as follows:
1. Chota (Cherokee Town)
2. Crow Creek Masacre
3. East Florida
4. Florida Territory
5. "Give me liberty or give me death"
6. Green Mound, FL
7. Coal mining in WV (but I need to make a few phone calls first to get the specifics)

I have found numerous articles on all of these topics with a basic seach of Google. I have also found a number of resources on Furman's database.

Well it looks as though I'm the first to post out of the green group. Hopefully some other groupmembers will realize they have to post before class tomorrow. Anyways, I just finished reading and attempting to analyze the three assigned Antifederalist papers. Once I reached the near end of the second De Witt Essay, I noticed, what appeared to me, a hypocricy contained within these letters. Correct me if I'm wrong (and I quite possibly am, since I had a difficult time fully understanding the words used in these letters) but in all three letters, the writers stated that a Bill of Rights wasn't needed because every citizen would implicitly have every right that was not explicitly written down. The writers seem to count on the character and common sense of the American people to know what they can and cannot do. But at near the end of De Witt's second essay he acknowledges the probability of the abuse of the new government, particularly the appeals system of the new courts. It's seems to me that these two contradicting behaviors of the american people would imply the need for a Bill of Rights. I hope that all makes sense; it's difficult sometimes for me to express in words the way I piece things together in my head.

Now for the second part of discussion, William's theory behind the death of Silas Deane was great. I have also read about how the British felt the need to control in some sense the spread of industrialization. I wish I'd thought of that while reading.

I am a senior Sociology major from the very small town of Somerset, Kentucky where I have lived my whole life. I have no clue what I want to be but hopefully after Furman I will attend Graduate school. I enjoy soccer, tennis, music, animals, traveling, the outdoors and Kentucky basketball!

No, thats okay Lorin. I could really care less about the Barbary Pirates, I just thought it would be fun to discuss.

If you consider the US colonists to be terrorists in their westward expansionism then you have to include all the nations of Europe who initiated the colonization of North and South America. Taken to its logical extreme, the original terrorists would then be the homo-sapiens who came out of Africa and displaced the neanderthals in Europe. This expansion has driven the discussion beyond the original topic of the Barbary Pirates. If you would like to further discuss this issue, write a topic question, and I will respond.

In reading all the recent posts concerning terrorists and Silas Deane, I realized a common thread. Just as we read about the different facts that can be researched and used to build a historical analysis of a character, so too can facts be combined and used to describe various terrorists. I know this seems obvious but to me this is an interesting way to tie the art of researching history to the history that is happening right now. I wish I knew more about the terrorists and their various groups but its so hard to decide which groups of information, the obvious ones or the seemingly unimportant ones, are truly valid. I took a course on Religions of the World last term and really enjoyed learning a list of facts that divide, for example, the Sunni and Shiite Muslims. I think this idea of including lots of information, even obscure facts, can help us to better understand every situation, political or otherwise, that we face.

I thought of another reason (that is abstract) why this class would matter ten years down the road. In high school my math teacher (a Furman graduate) always told us that we were not going to school to learn about a certain subject (history for example) but to mold us into mature adults. By attending this class we are learning time management and how to work with others by working in groups. Also, by taking this class we are not just learning about history but expanding our minds to think about more than just the obvious. We are learning to think and sound more educated. Lastly, my high school teacher said that by taking different classes (in college) you are making more connections which, is helpful in the “real world”. Thus, as a member of a firm ten years down the road, these examples would also be beneficial, as well as those talked about in class.

My name is Jolene Liana Clark and I am a senior communication/sociology double major from a rural little town in western North Carolina. I enjoy intramurals (especially soccer and bowling), crafting, target shooting, and baking. I hope to work in either public relations or pharmaceutical sales after graduation.

So would the US claim to lands west of the original colonies (Indian lands and the Indian neighbors not being allowed to claim the property that they had lived on) and the pillaging of Indian villages and the massacre of Indian trines (men, as well as women and children) count as terrorism?

I wasn't trying to say that all terrorists are Islamic, but I was scared that someone might infer that all Muslims are terrorists. And the Basque people aren't terrorist, just the organization Eta.

I do agree that one similarity between the two is that they are both Islamic, but not all terrorists are Islamic, like the IRA and the Basque in Spain, so we have be careful not to generalize. The Barbary Pirates claimed international waters as their territory. Their neighbors on the Mediterranean were not allowed any claim to those same waters. I would define terrorism as unjustified attacks against civilians. The Barbary Pirates captured many civilian merchant ships as well as American military ships that were passing through international waters.

OK, about the Silas Deane story. Is it possible that Deane was not necessarily poisoned so that he wouldn't leak out information about his past shady deals, but instead by people higher up in Britain that didn't want him to take knowledge out of the country about the mills and factories? I know this happened in England, and I was kind of dissapointed that the authors didnt mention this. But then again, he could have also been poisoned for winning too much at a card game while on the ship waiting to leave for America for that week. Any number of possibilities exist I suppose. I did find it interesting how you can tell the same story many different ways and still be able to back it up, it just depends on what information you use!

Lorin, I can see your point when you compare "the US's dealings with the Barbary Pirates and our current involvement with Islamic terrorists", but you have to ask yourself, what is terrorism? I wonder if you are linking these two things together, possibly unfairly for the the Barbary Pirates, simply because they are Islamic. Yes, the Barbary Pirates took US sailors and Marines prisoner, but why? Because the US refused to pay the tribute to use the waters which the Barbary States claimed as theirs. Does that define terrorism? I do however think that you are right when you say that it is our earliset projection of power overseas. I think it was vital for the US to send that message, especially in the Second Barbary War, after our defeat in the War of 1812. It sent the message that we still had something.

The Barbary Wars are referenced in the Wikipedia article "History of the US (1789-1849)." These wars were important events in American history from 1801-1815. They were among the earlist projections of American power overseas. The Babary Pirates have been referred to as the earliest terrorists. Many similarities have been noted between the US's dealings with the Barbary Pirates and our current involvement with Islamic terrorists. What are your thoughts on this issue?

I'm not sure if us Red groupers were just required to do the name and info thing or actual historical discussion, so I'm going to just go ahead and do the history thing as well. When skimming through An Outline of American History Chapter 1 I took particlar interest in page 12. I have always been fascinated by the Anasazi Indians, how did they just disappear? It seems that there is always just a blurb about them in history books, and not much else. Since reading the Prolouge to After the Fact I am beginning to question the conclusions that have been submitted about the tribe. it seems as though the facts just don't add up, just like the case of Silas Deane. Sure maybe they migrated because of drought, but to where? And why would they leave clothes in their dwellings if they weren't coming back? However they obviously were not wiped out because evidence of their culture can be seen in the later Western tribes such as the Hopi.

Hello everyone. My name is Joel Prather and I am from Somerset, Kentucky. I'm a political science major and will most likely be heading to law school after I finish up here at Furman. I'm a sports fanatic, especially soccer, tennis and college basketball. I'm a big fan of history, especially as it relates to politics and government in the United States.

My name is Katherine Varner from Atlanta Georgia. I am a history and education major although I have not yet declared. I want to teach preschool after graduation, but eventually teach high school history. I am a bit of a shopaholic especially shoes. I love to cook and play paintball

Hi, my name is Blaine Uhlman and I am a sophomore from Tacoma, Washington. I am a communications major and someday hope to attend Graduate School in Sports and Athletic Administration. I am in the Tau Kappa Epsilon fraternity and I enjoy all kinds of sports especially baseball, college basketball, football, and hockey.

Greetings all. I'm David Saxton and am a sophmore from Apex, NC. I participate in Army ROTC and powerlifting club. I play the bagpipes and have an interest in medieval history.

My name is Robert Wilkinson and I'm a sophmore from Washington D.C. Currently I am undecided on a major but I'm leaning towards History. I'm a Sigma Chi and I enjoy the outdoors and other fun stuff. That's it.

My name is Casey Miller and I'm a sophomore from Daytona Beach, FL. I'm an HES major and hope to attend medical school to be a surgeon. I enjoy outdoor activities including hunting and fishing. I am also a TKE and I like to hang out with my brothers.

Hi, my name is Mason Smith and I am a junior political science and history major. I was born and raised in Columbia, SC. I play baseball here at Furman and am a starting pitcher. I played three sports in high school and am enjoy watching most any sporting event. After Furman I hope to attend law school.

My name is Miller Yoho and I am a sophomore from Gastonia, NC. I enjoy a lot of things including frisbee, whitewater, and sailing. I am currently undeclared but will probably declare History and Education this semester. I plan on teaching high school history.

Hey, I'm a freshman from Fern Park, Florida right to the north of Orlando. I am a walk-on on the football team and I love any kind of athletic competition, even competitive log cutting. I'm an eagle scout and I love the outdoors. I have no idea what my major is, for right now I like to say "I'm majoring in life". Anyway I do love hisotry so I'm looking forward to this class.

I'm a sophopmore from the small town of Walhalla, South Carolina, about 20 minutes from Clemson. I was born in Maryland, but only lived there for three years before moving here. I really have no idea what I want to do with my life but I know I want to study history. I love the outdoors and am a big fan of college sports. Ok I'm done.

Hello, my name is Katherine Spigner, but people call me Kate. I'm a sophomore almost a junior. I'm a transfer student. I live here in Gville. I'm majoring in history, but have no idea what I'm going to do with it. Patience has never been one of my stronger virtues, so teaching may not be the direction I follow. My passions are deeply embedded in who I am becoming and Furmans seems like its going to be a big part of that. My interests involve: performing arts, visual arts, hiking, climbing (love it, but not that great at it), and reading American classics.
Oh, I wasn't in class Thursday due to a little thing called over-crowding in my mouth. My wisdom teeth had to come out. I will be in on Monday.

Hey everybody, my name is Whitney and I'm from Hickory, NC. I am a sophomore and my intended major is French and Communications. I thought I wanted to be a teacher, but I'm not sure yet. I plan on studying abroad in France next fall term for 3 months and I am so excited! I am also involved with Young Life at JL Mann HS. Have a good weekend everybody.

I am a sophmore from Scranton, PA. I am a member of the football team and ROTC. I served as an Airborne Ranger in the Army before college and spent time in Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Kosovo during that period. I am a history major and will be returning to the military following school.

Edited by author 01-05-2007 01:46 PM
Hi, my name is Renaldo Gray a 4th year senior from Greenwood, SC. I am a part of the wonderful football program that we have here at Furman. When I say a 4th year senior I mean that I am a senior in the classes I take but I was only a junior this past football season. So I will return to Furman in the fall of '07 and graduate December '07. I am a HES major and once I graduate I am looking to take up a career in personal training. When I am not playing football I enjoy hanging with the guys and of course playing Playstation 2.

I am a sophomore from Windermere, Florida, which is outside of Orlando near Disney. Although I haven't officially declared my major yet, I plan on teaching high school with a History major. I am involved with Young Life at Mauldin High School, just outside of Greenville.

I am a sophomore from Rome, Georgia, a small town northwest of Atlanta. I have not determined my major yet, but I will probably be a history or business major. Depending on my major I am planning on going to law school or business school. I enjoy college football, playing soccer, fishing, and being outdoors.

Hi, my name is Todd, like it says to the left over there <--- I am from Bradenton, Florida. Bradenton has many claims to argue for its fame including The home of the Nick Bollettieri Tennis Academy (yes I've seen Sharapova at dinner), and the home of Tropicana Pure Premium Orange Juice and other tasty refreshments. Seriously, look on your box of orange juice and it will say something about Bradenton. I am a tennis player, an endurance athlete (I dabble), and on the cycling team with William, and spent way too much time reading your marathon logs. I believe that nutrition is a journey, not a destination. I also drink way too much water and may have to leave class a couple times for aforementioned implications. I think this will suffice for now. Please, don't take me seriously...except on my exams.

I am a sophomore from Macon, Georgia. I am a double major in History and Political Science. I plan to go to law school after Furman. After that, I am currently planning on either going into politics or entertainment law. I enjoy playing tennis, swimming, and traveling. I would love to visit Ireland. I like anything related to NASA. I have been to Space Camp several times.

I am a sophmore from Tampa, Florida. I am majoring in history and either asian studies or religion. I would like to one day teach history, somewhere. I am in Army ROTC here at Furman, possibly making a career out of that. I am also on the Furman Cycling Team. I like early 20th century, military, colonialism as far as history goes. I enjoy cycling and running.

I'm a sophomore from Flat Rock, North Carolina. I'm undeclared, but definately gonna be an Asian Studies major and probably double major in History. I play defense for Furman's club lacrosse team, and I may help coach a local highschool team in my free time this year. I love Lacrosse, and I love Japan, hopefully I'll study in Osaka next year. I also enjoy lifting weights, anime, comics, and video games.

I'm a sophomore from Elizabethton, Tennessee. I'm majoring in both philosophy and history, but philosophy holds most of my interest, particularly Buddhism, Zen, and Taoism. I grew up in a small town about the size of this campus, so I've experienced more than my share of small-town America. Hopefully I'll go to law school, not because I really want to, but because I have to in order to get a real job. I know that's going to hurt me in the long run, but no matter how much I like something, I've got to find something to do to put bread on the table. It's hard to be a monk and feed the kids, and I do want a family someday. But for now, I'll stick to my friends and my brothers in Sigma Nu They're the best group of guys I could ever want to know, and I'm proud to be with them.

Welcome to the HST-21 Winter 2007 course discussion board. Please post a short biographical sketch of yourself to this message board.